Rahul Sharma (Editor)

Pendergrast v Chapman

Updated on
Share on FacebookTweet on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Reddit
Covid-19
Decided  8 December 1987
Transcript(s)  High Court judgment
End date  December 8, 1987
Citation(s)  [1988] 2 NZLR 177
Judge(s) sitting  Wylie J
Ruling court  High Court of New Zealand
Pendergrast v Chapman
Full case name  Graeme Ross Pendergrast v Paul Percy Chapman

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.

Contents

Background

Chapman agreed to purchase the Pendergrast's Epsom property for $650,000, $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 $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

Pendergrast v Chapman Wikipedia


Similar Topics
Matt McIlvane
Connie Sawyer
Alejandro Goic
Topics
 
B
i
Link
H2
L