Decided 23 September 1987 Judge(s) sitting Hillyer J End date September 23, 1987 | Citation(s) [1987] 2 NZLR 542 | |
 | ||
Full case name David Bird and Denise Beatrix Bird v Janice Bicknell, Dominic Faanoi, Dennise Faanoi, Ceedric Rodrigues and Robert Martin Ruling court Court of Appeal of New Zealand | ||
Bird v Bicknell [1987] 2 NZLR 542 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding fraud merely being a factor (albeit an important factor) in determining whether an exclusion clause is valid or not. It is contrasted with M E Torbett Ltd v Keirlor Motels Ltd where is held that an exclusion clause is simply not valid where a party has committed fraud.
Contents
Background
Bird was in the business of selling franchises regarding a chemical process, which they told Bicknell was secret only to them, and that a patent application was pending. These claims were later discovered to be fraudulent, and Bicknell refused to make the final payment on his franchise. Bird pointed out the contract had a clause agreeing to no warranties were given about the patent.
Bird sued Bicknell.
Held
The court found that the exclusion clause was not "fair and reasonable".