Rahul Sharma (Editor)

Pendergrast v Chapman

Updated on
Edit
Like
Comment
Share on FacebookTweet on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Reddit
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