Pendergrast v Chapman
CourtHigh Court of New Zealand
Full case nameGraeme Ross Pendergrast v Paul Percy Chapman
Decided8 December 1987
Citation(s)[1988] 2 NZLR 177
Transcript(s)High Court judgment
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingWylie J

Pendergrast v Chapman [1988] 2 NZLR 177 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding the consequences of cancellation of a contract under the Contractual Remedies Act 1979.[1][2]

Background

Chapman agreed to purchase the Pendergrast's Epsom property for NZ$650,000, NZ$40,000 of the deposit to be paid via a post-dated cheque.

The post dated cheque later dishonoured, and as a result, Pendergrast cancelled the contract and sued Chapman for the NZ$40,000 unpaid deposit. Chapman defended the claim that under the section 8(3) of the Contractual Remedies Act, once a contract is cancelled, neither party is obliged to perform the contract any further.

Held

The court ruled that the Act only stopped future obligations, not obligations that had already fallen due, such as the deposit here. Chapman was ruled liable to pay the deposit.

References

  1. ↑ Chetwin, Maree; Graw, Stephen; Tiong, Raymond (2006). An introduction to the Law of Contract in New Zealand (4th ed.). Thomson Brookers. p. . ISBN 0-86472-555-8.
  2. ↑ Walker, Campbell (2004). Butterworths Student Companion Contract (4th ed.). LexisNexis. pp. 203–204. ISBN 0-408-71770-X.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.