week four Flashcards
what form of contract did france v hight concern
a lease where hight is the landlord and france is the lessee
what did hight send to france detailing and confirming the terms of the agreement as per the meeting in france v hight
a letter on 17 october 1979
was a formal lease ever signed, as per the section 8 in the letter, in france v hight
no, it was never executed
what did the judge conclude regarding the lease in France v hight
there was a binding agreement to lease, as decided after the analysis of the words of that letter and in the context of the situation
what points were factors towards the letter being a binding agreement in France v Hight
- the heading said ‘confirm the terms of our agreement’
- the end part suggests there is a concluded agreement by wishing them every success in their venture
- paragraph 6 or 7 contemplate the payment of money for the replanting to happen
what did Fletcher Challenge Energy v ECNZ 2002 concern
a negotiation for the long provision of gas supply
what was created in Fletcher Challenge Energy v ECNZ 2002 which was signed as agreed except where indicated (one clause said to be agreed and another two said not agreed)
the heads of agreement document
what was the question for the court in Fletcher Challenge Energy v ECNZ 2002
whether the heads of agreement document was a binding contract
what is outlined in Fletcher Challenge Energy v ECNZ 2002 as the first requirement for an interim contract
An intention to be immediately bound (at the point when the bargain is said to have been agreed)
what factors suggested the parties intended to be bound in Fletcher Challenge Energy v ECNZ 2002
- earlier statement signed by the CEO’s
- the fact the heads of agreement was a written document signed by both parties
- the fact the ECNZ board did approve the agreement
what factors suggested the parties did not intend to be bound in Fletcher Challenge Energy v ECNZ 2002
- the ‘non agreement’ of 3 clauses
- the reasonable endevours to agree to a full sale and agreement part - full agreement still to come
- parties signed the heads of agreement document as ‘agreed except where indicated’
what was the decision in Fletcher Challenge Energy v ECNZ 2002
the court decided they were not intending to be bound
what term did Oracle NZ v Price Waterhouse 2010 concern
“in principle”
what did the court have to decide in Oracle NZ v Price Waterhouse 2010
whether there was a contractual agreement or some sort of interim agreement
what quote did McKay J say about the term ‘in principle’ in Oracle NZ v Price Waterhouse 2010
“to regard an agreement in principle as binding would be to deprive the qualifying words “in principle” of any meaning at all”
what do interim agreements allow for
there is no point wasting resources to figure out the rest of the details if there isn’t any broad agreement
what is battle of the forms
where two parties are negotiating and each party has a set of standard terms
what is the problem with battles of the forms
where every time the two parties communicate they send their set of standard terms and conditions, both of which are different
what was the problem/situation in Butler Machine Tools Co v Ex-Cell-O Corporation 1979
Butler offered to supply a machine tool in a quotation (often an offer) and on the back of the quotation were there standard terms and conditions. One of which gave the seller the power to increase the price if their costs rose before the delivery date.
what was the offer, counter-offer and acceptance in Butler Machine Tools Co v Ex-Cello-O Corporation 1979
offer = quotation
counter-offer = purchase order sent on different terms (of conditions)
acceptance = signing and returning of the acknowledgement form
what does Lord Wilberforce say in New Zealand Shipping Co v A M Sattherthwaite 1974
that the standard approach looks for offer and acceptance in terms of agreement, and sometimes this means squeezing situations into this approach, where they don’t entirely fit
what happened in Boulder Consolidated v Tangaere 1980
the vendors gave Mr Tangaere a list of 30 sections to choose from due to an issue with his first lot, including 4 available lots.
3 months later Mr Tangaere decided to take one of the 4 lots but it had already been sold
what did Mr Tangaere argue in Boulder Consolidated v Tangaere 1980
that the written note alongside the correspondence constituted an offer and that when he said he decided to take one of them that was the acceptance
what did the court hold in Boulder Consolidated v Tangaere 1980
the list was not an offer because this would have meant the seller had to keep all the lots available - it was only an indication of the lots available at the time
