Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Contractual Mistakes Act 1977 was an Act of Parliament in New Zealand that codified into law the remedies for mistake previously available under common law. It was repealed by the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017.
A bench of five of the Court Appeal ruled that the Contractual Mistakes Act 1977 requires that Tristar had actual knowledge of the mistake at the time, and not merely "ought to of known" of the mistake as was the old common law standard. Henry J stated "It may of course be proper for the Court to infer actual knowledge from proved circumstances ...
Hence the contract is voidable. Collateral mistakes will not afford the right of rescission. A collateral mistake is one that "does not go to the heart" of the contract. For a mutual mistake to render a contract void, then the item the parties are mistaken about must be material (emphasis added). When there is a material mistake about a ...
Ware v Johnson [1984] 2 NZLR 518 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding where both parties entering into a contract make the same mistake (often referred to as a common mistake) when a contract is formed, under section 6(1)(a)(ii) of the Contractual Mistakes Act 1977. [1] [2] [3]
Phillips v Phillips [1993] 3 NZLR 159; (1993) 10 FRNZ 110 is a cited court case in New Zealand, where both parties entering into a contract make the same mistake (often referred to as a common mistake) when a contract is formed, under section 6(1)(a)(ii) of the Contractual Mistakes Act 1977.
King v Wilkinson Court High Court of New Zealand Full case name King v Wilkinson Decided 1994 Citation (1994) 2 NZConvC 191,828 King v Wilkinson (1994) 2 NZConvC 191,828 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding where a mistake is known to one party (often referred to as a unilateral mistake) when a contract is formed, under section 6(1)(a)(i) of the Contractual Mistakes Act 1977. Background ...
America’s top investors have achieved double-digit returns for years, sometimes decades. Following these top investors is a great strategy for two reasons.
The court ruled that Shotter was liable for the full $100,000 due to the fact that the mistake was due to his mistaken interpretation of the extent of the guarantee, that the court was barred from granting any relief under s6(2)a of the Contractual Mistakes Act 1977.