Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
26 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
Bissett v Wilkinson |
Statement of Opinion: Whether the opinion represents fact can be based on relative positions and expertise. Opinion needs true fact justifying it. |
|
Premium Real Estate v Stevens |
Statement of Opinion: Must be honestly and reasonably held. Silence: Can't tell half truths |
|
Ware v Johnson |
Prediction: Must be based on true fact, which can be extracted. Silence: No general obligation to speak,unless gestures misled. Induce: Statement must be said with intent to induce, knowledge that it's a misrepresentation isn't required. |
|
New Zealand Motor Bodies v Emslie |
Prediction: Prediction can't be negligently formed as expert. There is a level of tolerance. Implies facts justify forecast. Subsequent events before signing must be divulged. Induce: Must be a material factor, but doesn't need to be the only one. |
|
Esso Petroleum v Mardon |
Prediction: People rely on professional predictions - must be good. Duty to not be negligent. |
|
Buxton |
Predictions: Once prediction is made, onus is on adviser to keep informed. |
|
Mitchell v Valherie |
Puffery: Must be obviously hyperbolic to the reasonable person. Look in the context of the market. Helps if too vague to have a definitive meaning. (Dissenting: facts can be extracted and statements are used in consumer decisions.) |
|
Wakelin v Jackson |
Silence: No half truths, once statement is begun the whole truth must be told. Agency: CRA only includes contractual parties. Can only be liable for statements made by those with and within sensible authority. |
|
Ladstone v Leonora |
Silence: Can't be liable for not disclosing the unknown. |
|
Dell v Beasley |
Silence: Duty to disclose when other party under clear misconception. |
|
Savill v NZI Finance |
Induce: Inducement must be intended, objectively. |
|
PAE v Brosnahan |
CRA Contracting Out: Purpose of CRA is to protect the vulnerable. Here, all was equal so they contracted out. |
|
CRA s6(1)(a) |
Provides damages for misrepresentation to the extent as if the misrepresentation had been true. |
|
CRA s7(3)(a) |
Provides for cancellation for misrepresentation, but only if it substantially changes the burden or benefit from what it was intended to be. |
|
FTA s9 |
No person shall, in trade, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive. |
|
Red Eagle v Ellis |
Misleading or Deceptive: No judicial gloss. Test objectively on defendant's conduct. Intent not required but there must be a causal nexus. The less the other party knows the stricter the test. |
|
Bonz Group v Cooke |
Misleading or Deceptive: Misrepresentation isn't required. (Obiter: silence cases may have a misapprehension but that's not necessarily a misrepresentation.) |
|
Smythe v Bayleys Real Estate |
Misleading or Deceptive: Don't stretch the meaning of "misleading and deceptive conduct". |
|
Heiber v Barfoot & Thompos |
Puffery: Puffery can have facts extracted from it which must be true. |
|
Unilever NZ v Cerebos Gregg |
Misleading or Deceptive: Puffery is "alive and well", need strong case for s9. |
|
Des Forges v Wright |
Misleading or Deceptive: Doesn't apply to"wholey unconscious" failures to pass on information. |
|
FTA s2(1) |
Defines "in trade" |
|
Body Corporate v Taylor |
"In Trade": Look to conduct to see.Go for businesses not employees. |
|
FTA s5C |
FTA applies to all trade, can't contract out. |
|
David v TFAC |
FTA Contrcating Out: (Obiter: When all parties are well advised in corporate world, they may be able to contract out) |
|
FTA s43(3) |
Provides for damages on s9, so long as plaintiff has been affected or potentially affected. |