Garratt v Ikeda [2002] 1 NZLR 577 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding where a contract is cancelled under the Contractual Remedies Act 1979, if the deposit has not been paid, it is still payable, despite section 8(3)(a). [1][2]
| Garratt v Ikeda | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Court of Appeal of New Zealand |
| Full case name | CLIVE CHARLES GARRATT Appellant v KOZO IKEDA Respondent |
| Decided | 13 September 2001 |
| Citation(s) | [2002] 1 NZLR 577 |
| Transcript(s) | Court of Appeal judgment |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Tipping, Blanchard J, McGrath J |
Background edit
Garratt agreed to purchase Ikeda's property for $1.83 million, with a 10% deposit, payable in 3 instalments.
After paying the first two instalments totaling $50,000, Garratt defaulted on the final $130,000 payment due on the deposit. As a result, Ikeda cancelled the sale, and resold the property to another party for $400,000 more than Garratt had agreed to purchase the property.
With the sale now cancelled, Garratt requested Ikeda to refund the $50,000 he had paid on the deposit. Ikeda refused, despite the fact that he had resold the property for a $400,000 profit.
Garratt eventually sued for his deposit back.
Held edit
The court ruled that section 8(3)(a) did not apply here, as the deposit was a performed obligation at the date of the cancellation. Relief under section 9 for the $400,0000 resale profit, was also refused.
References edit
- ^ Chetwin, Maree; Graw, Stephen; Tiong, Raymond (2006). An introduction to the Law of Contract in New Zealand (4th ed.). Thomson Brookers. p. 425. ISBN 0-86472-555-8.
- ^ Walker, Campbell (2004). Butterworths Student Companion Contract (4th ed.). LexisNexis. p. 209-210. ISBN 0-408-71770-X.
 | This article relating to case law in New Zealand is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |