Court of Appeal of New Zealand
Held: ‘The court has an entirely neutral approach when determining whether the parties intended to enter into a contract. Having decided that they had that intention, however, the court’s attitude will change. It will then do its best to give effect to their intention and, if at all possible, to uphold the contract despite any omissions or ambiguities.’
Judges:
Richardson P, Thomas J, Keith J, Blanchard J, McGrath J
Citations:
[2002] 2 NZLR 433, (2001) 7 NZBLC 103, 477, [2001] NZCA 289
Links:
Cited by:
Approved – Carlyle (Scotland) v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc SC 11-Mar-2015
Assessing Whether 1st Judge was Plainly Wrong
The Court was asked whether, on an objective assessment of a what a developer and the bank had said to each other, the bank intended to enter into a legally binding promise to advance sums in the future to fund not only the developers purchase of . .
Cited – Santander (UK) Plc v Parker CANI 16-Jun-2015
Appeal by Mr Parker against the judgment dismissing Mr Parker’s appeal against the Order of Master Bell refusing a stay on possession by Santander (UK) PLC of the appellant’s dwelling house.
Held: A promissory note was equivalent to cash, but . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Commonwealth, Contract
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.550149