161:
solicitor to obtain an outright sale of the farm, and they later agreed to a sale at an unspecified price to be determined by a valuer. However, unknown to either Mr Hart or even Jack's own solicitor at the time, Jack was suffering from senile dementia. It was also later discovered that the sale conditions were arguably unfair, as the property was later sold for $ 180,000 (rounded up from a valuation of $ 179,780), when a subsequent valuation was $ 197,000, and the purchaser only had to pay for the farm two years after he had taken possession, giving Mr Hart the benefit of any rise in farm prices in those two years. Jack subsequently died. After the two surviving brothers retained new solicitors, they subsequently took legal action to set aside the sale. While they were unsuccessful in the High Court, they were later successful in the
31:
181:
favourable outcome than the other party, i.e., a bargain. For such a contract to be set aside for unfairness, the second party had to be active in obtaining an unfair contract. In this case the Privy
Council held that Mr. Harts conduct was "beyond reproach", emphasising that most of the sale terms and conditions were proposed by the trust's own solicitor, which Mr Hart merely accepted.
156:
since their father died in 1911. Jack and his two brothers Dennis and Joseph both worked and lived on the farm owned by the trust. By the mid-1970s, the brothers were in their 70s and 80s, and given their advanced age, their solicitor recommended that something be done about the farm ownership. Jack
160:
As it turned out, a neighbour, Mr Hart was interested in buying the property and after negotiations with Jack and his solicitor, they arranged for the farm to be leased to Mr Hart, with a clause of right to purchase. Within a month, Mr Hart, unhappy with leasing the farm, contacted the vendor's
180:
The Privy
Council advised that the contract was not an unconscionable bargain. The Court said there were two types of "unfair" contracts: "procedural unfairness", where a benefit is obtained through undue influence, i.e., victimisation, and "contractual imbalance", where one party gets a more
157:
essentially had three options: to lease out the farm, but that was ruled out as only delaying an inevitable sale; to sell the farm to his two nephews, which he ruled out, as he did not think his nephews could make a success out of the farm; and the third option, a sale to a third party.
284:
299:
141:
304:
251:
226:
294:
162:
289:
198:
184:
Accordingly, the Court rescinded the Court of
Appeals ruling to set aside the sale contract for the farm.
94:
193:
129:
247:
222:
137:
30:
309:
133:
50:
Thomas Bruce Hart v Joseph O’Connor, Paul
Michael O’Connor & Francis Joseph O’Connor
269:
75:
98:
278:
169:
102:
90:
125:
285:
Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council cases on appeal from New Zealand
153:
152:
Jack O'Connor was the trustee of a trust that owned the family farm in
128:
is an important case in New
Zealand, also relevant for
108:
86:
81:
71:
63:
55:
45:
37:
23:
246:(4th ed.). LexisNexis. pp. 154–155.
8:
136:to enter into contract as well as regarding
217:Gerbic, Philippa; Lawrence, Martin (2003).
20:
244:Butterworths Student Companion Contract
209:
114:mental capacity, unconscionable bargain
7:
14:
67:1 NZLR 159, AC 1000, 3 WLR 214
29:
163:Court of Appeal of New Zealand
140:, which made it as far as the
1:
300:New Zealand contract case law
168:Mr Hart then appealed to the
221:(5th ed.). LexisNexis.
219:Understanding Commercial Law
165:, which set aside the sale.
326:
305:English contract case law
270:Link to full text of case
242:Walker, Campbell (2004).
199:English unjust enrichment
113:
28:
295:1985 in New Zealand law
138:unconscionable bargains
16:Contract of New Zealand
95:Lord Bridge of Harwich
76:Privy Council judgment
194:English contract law
130:English contract law
118:
117:
103:Sir Denys Buckley
317:
290:1985 in case law
258:
257:
239:
233:
232:
214:
82:Court membership
33:
21:
325:
324:
320:
319:
318:
316:
315:
314:
275:
274:
266:
261:
254:
241:
240:
236:
229:
216:
215:
211:
207:
190:
178:
150:
134:mental capacity
122:Hart v O'Connor
24:Hart v O'Connor
17:
12:
11:
5:
323:
321:
313:
312:
307:
302:
297:
292:
287:
277:
276:
273:
272:
265:
264:External links
262:
260:
259:
252:
234:
227:
208:
206:
203:
202:
201:
196:
189:
186:
177:
174:
149:
146:
116:
115:
111:
110:
106:
105:
99:Lord Brightman
88:
87:Judges sitting
84:
83:
79:
78:
73:
69:
68:
65:
61:
60:
57:
53:
52:
47:
46:Full case name
43:
42:
39:
35:
34:
26:
25:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
322:
311:
308:
306:
303:
301:
298:
296:
293:
291:
288:
286:
283:
282:
280:
271:
268:
267:
263:
255:
253:0-408-71770-X
249:
245:
238:
235:
230:
228:0-408-71714-9
224:
220:
213:
210:
204:
200:
197:
195:
192:
191:
187:
185:
182:
175:
173:
171:
170:Privy Council
166:
164:
158:
155:
147:
145:
143:
142:Privy Council
139:
135:
131:
127:
124:
123:
112:
107:
104:
100:
96:
92:
89:
85:
80:
77:
74:
70:
66:
62:
59:22 April 1985
58:
54:
51:
48:
44:
41:Privy Council
40:
36:
32:
27:
22:
19:
243:
237:
218:
212:
183:
179:
167:
159:
151:
132:, regarding
121:
120:
119:
91:Lord Scarman
49:
18:
279:Categories
72:Transcript
188:See also
109:Keywords
64:Citation
310:Waimate
154:Waimate
56:Decided
250:
225:
176:Advice
126:UKPC 1
205:Notes
148:Facts
38:Court
248:ISBN
223:ISBN
281::
172:.
144:.
101:,
97:,
93:,
256:.
231:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
