Timely payment but no settlement: A necessary requirement of notification?

McLauchlan, David W. (2008) Timely payment but no settlement: A necessary requirement of notification?. New Zealand Business Law Quarterly, 14: 37-44.

Author McLauchlan, David W.
Title Timely payment but no settlement: A necessary requirement of notification?
Journal name New Zealand Business Law Quarterly
ISSN 1173-311X
Publication date 2008
Sub-type Article (original research)
Issue 14
Start page 37
End page 44
Total pages 8
Place of publication Wellington, New Zealand
Publisher Thomson Brookers
Language eng
Abstract You want to buy a house. You sign the contract. You pay the deposit. All the conditions are met. You reach settlement day. Your lawyer pays the money over to the vendor's solicitor before the deadline stated in the contract. However, a technical glitch means that the vendor doesn't receive notice that the money has been paid until after the deadline has passed. Surely that doesn't matter? Well, it did in the recent Supreme Court case of Larsen v Rick Dees Ltd [2007] 3 NZLR 577, where the Court upheld the vendor’s cancellation of contracts for the sale of real estate. This article, published in (2008) 14 NZBLQ 37, analyses the Court’s reasoning in support of this harsh result. It questions the basis for finding that the purchaser had breached an essential obligation to make the vendor aware of the payment and argues that the contrary conclusion could easily have been justified.
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Provisional Code
Institutional Status UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article (original research)
Collection: TC Beirne School of Law Publications
 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Fri, 23 Mar 2012, 11:54:47 EST by Carmen Buttery on behalf of T.C. Beirne School of Law