Pearson v Wynn (1986) 2 NZCPR 449 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding the requirement under section 7(4)(b) of the Contractual Remedies Act 1970 that a breach of contract must be "substantial" for a contract to be cancelled.[1]
| Pearson v Wynn | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | High Court of New Zealand |
| Full case name | Pearson v Wynn |
| Decided | 6 May 1986 |
| Citation(s) | (1986) 2 NZCPR 449 |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Wlliamson J |
Background edit
Pearson sold to Wynn his horticultural land for $159,000.
Prior to the sale, Pearson had misrepresented that the land was fully irrigated, when in fact that the irrigation system need a further $9,500 to $10,000 spent on it.
When this came to the notice of Wynn, he cancelled the contract.
Pearson sued to have the contract honoured.
Held edit
The court held that whilst the $9,500 - $10,000 in costs were not substantial in itself, that the inconvenience of the work that was entailed, met the standard required under either s 7 (4)(b)(I) or s7(4)(b)(ii). Williamson J stated "Matters in relation to this term not necessarily relate only to value or money, but may also involve features which confer a benefit or cast a burden of some substantive on a party".
References edit
- ^ Chetwin, Maree; Graw, Stephen; Tiong, Raymond (2006). An introduction to the Law of Contract in New Zealand (4th ed.). Thomson Brookers. p. 354. ISBN 0-86472-555-8.