Show Menu
Cheatography
  1. Home >
  2. Education >

NZ Contract law Cheat Sheet (DRAFT) by

NZ Contract law cheatsheet

This is a draft cheat sheet. It is a work in progress and is not finished yet.

Offer

Smith v Hughes
Terms = RPT in O'ees shoes
OT Africa Lines v Vickers
Mistake invalid if O'ee knew or ought to
Harvey v Facey
Lowest price ≠ O
Grainger
Price list not offer
Boots Cash Chemist
Sale occurs at counter, not basket
Payne v Cave
O can be revoked any time before A
Sommer­ville v Rice
Revocation effective on commun­ication to O'or
Kean v Dunfoy
O lapses after a reasonable time
Dysart Timbers v Neilson
O lapses on fundam­ental change in circum­stances

Acceptance

Robinson v Hemach­andra
Acceptance = RPT O'or
Brogden v Metro Rail
Acceptance by conduct
Airways v Geyserland
A by conduct undermined by express disagr­eement
Lee v Sayers
A only by Offeree not 3rd party
Hyde v Wrench
Counte­roffer = rejection of OG offer
Reparoa Stores v Treloar
CO = RPT in shoes of O'or
Stevenson v McLean
Enquiry ≠ CO
Powierza v Daley
E v CO = RPT O'or
Tinn v Hoffman
Cross offer ≠ A
Kean v Dunfoy
A effective when O'or reads/­becomes aware of the conduct
CC v Telecom
O'or waived right to note -> break seal = A
Allbrite
O'or can mandate A mode - Express prescr­iption required
Corrick
O'or can mandate A form - Express prescr­iption required
Adams v Lindsell
Postal rule A effective on postage, if post specified in the offer
Holwell securities
Can't P rule if O'or req note or postage not requested in offer
Petterson v Gothard
Design­tion, past use or express
Pratt Contra­ctors Ltd
Process contracts, bid cost/p­rep­+pr­omise A = C
Carbolic Smoke Ball Co
Unilateral contract to world, A on perfor­mance
Lindell Nominees
Unilateral cont. can't revoke if perfor­mance takes effort
R v Clarke
Deliberate Perf req. not just accide­ntal, must be with the contract in mind.
Carruthers v Whittaker
Prelim­inary contracts
France v Hight
"­letter to confirm details of our lease"
FCE v ECNZ
Prelim = RPT obj bystander
Oracle NZ v Price Waterhouse
"in princi­ple­" ≠ prelim­inary contract
Ex-Cell-O Corp
Last terms clap wins
Boulder Consol­idated
RPT on each Pty important
 

Agency

Brayhead
Actual, Implied, and Apparent Auth. Implied Auth Reasonable in Agt's pos
Bowditch
Undisc­losed Principal, Agent not party to contract
Siu Yin Kwan
1. Undisc­losed P is pty to main C where Agt acts on P's behalf and enters C within scope actual auth. 2. Agt must intend to enter C on P's behalf. 3. undisc­losed P's Agt can also sue/be sued. 4. Any claim against Agt available against P. 5. The terms expressly or by implic­ation exclude P's right to sue/be sued. C itself, or circum­stances abt C, may make Agt only pty in C.
Freeman
Apparent Auth due to Principal not Agts own actions
Pascoe Prop. Ltd
P knew, but didn't fix // held out as having authority = App auth

Ratifi­cation

Durant
A must be as agt for Rat.
Boston Fishing
P must be able to agree at time of signing for Rat. to be possible// statutory exemption for not yet incorp­orated companies
Wright
Warranty of Auth. - breach by agt if has no auth when purported to have

Intention to enter into legal relations

Beevers
intn viewd obj - conseq etc
Parker v Clark
written + big conseq­uences = intn
Padavatton
uniltrl var + vrbl-> no int
Mabon
Chrch stmt eff -> no int
Crompton
Expressly stated honour pledge/no intent -> no int
Esso Petroleum
Commercial benefit -> coins=sold
Carbolic Smoke Ball Co
$ in bank to convince -> not puff
 

Certainty + Comple­teness

WCC
Sufficent cert. on all essential terms required
FCE v ECNZ
Economic = SC // Reasonable endeavours ≠SC
Ouston
Hire purchase unclear -> ≠SC
Nicolene
uncertain non-es­sential terms not enforcable but Cont. as whole is
Barker Bros
arbitr­ation clause = C machinery can be used to determine uncertain terms
Money
Valuation = obj determ­inable -> SC
Agreement to Agree
FCE = not SC, WCC = Sometimes SC

Consid­eration

Thomas
$1/yr = GC peppercorn lease
Sidway
Forbea­rance = GC
Couch
FB to sue = GC if believe they have a good case
Shanklin Pier
Prms suitable + prms enter main C = GC
Clyne
Discre­tionary pms ≠ GC
Re McArdle
Past Consid­eration ≠ GC
Reid
Prms existing statut­orily obligated perf ≠ GC
Roffrey Bros
Vary C - $ to avoid penalties + $ to hire extra ppl
Antons Trawling
C var = no req for bilateral consid­eration
Teat
RBros still good, preference for AT view
NZ Ship. Co
3rd pty can now sue ->GC
Prop. Law Act 2017 s27A
Part pay on/after receipt OK
Foakes
Prms Partpa­yment ≠ GC -existing obligation
Kiwi Pack'g'ng
Prms Pp OK if $$ is in dispute
Temple
Prms Pp Ok if by 3rd pty -no ex ob

Promissory Estoppel

Krukziener
Written C beats any Verbal C
Maher
1. Pty assumed C formed 2. D induced P's belief 3. P relied on belief 4. D knew of belief 5. P’s acts to their detriment 6. D did not attempt to avoid detriment to P
Wilson Parking NZ
Maher 6pts met, Court enforced intended deal