31:
175:
122:
The court ruled that in New
Zealand, the customary deposit is 10%, meaning in this case, $ 300,000 was not in the nature of a deposit, and so was not enforceable here. Furthermore, Simanke's claim was not helped either by the fact that the sales agreement had limited the
216:
235:
114:, once a contract is cancelled, no party is obliged to perform any further on a contract. Simanke argued that the Act still requires the deposit to be paid.
240:
209:
255:
202:
153:
245:
110:
The contract was later cancelled, and
Siminake sued for the $ 300,000 deposit. Liu defended the claim by saying as under the
111:
88:
250:
41:
182:
149:
92:
30:
186:
124:
104:
229:
95:
in excess of a customary deposit, in this case 10%, is refundable to the purchaser.
174:
84:
107:
stating that a deposit of $ 300,000 was to be paid within 14 days.
127:
of deposit to be only 10%, anyway. Simanke's claim was dismissed.
103:
Simanke agreed to sell a property to Liu for $ 650,000, with the
190:
144:
Chetwin, Maree; Graw, Stephen; Tiong, Raymond (2006).
146:
An introduction to the Law of
Contract in New Zealand
70:
65:
57:
47:
37:
23:
16:High Court case regarding New Zealand contract law
148:(4th ed.). Thomson Brookers. p. 362.
87:regarding cancellation of a contract under the
210:
83:(1994) 2 NZ ConvC 191,888 is a cited case in
8:
217:
203:
29:
20:
136:
7:
236:Court of Appeal of New Zealand cases
171:
169:
189:. You can help Knowledge (XXG) by
14:
173:
1:
241:New Zealand contract case law
112:Contractual Remedies Act 1979
272:
256:New Zealand case law stubs
168:
181:This article relating to
61:(1994) 2 NZ ConvC 191,888
42:High Court of New Zealand
28:
89:Contractual Remedies Act
246:1994 in New Zealand law
183:case law in New Zealand
91:. It held that any
198:
197:
78:
77:
263:
251:1994 in case law
219:
212:
205:
177:
170:
160:
159:
141:
66:Court membership
33:
21:
271:
270:
266:
265:
264:
262:
261:
260:
226:
225:
224:
223:
166:
164:
163:
156:
143:
142:
138:
133:
120:
105:sales agreement
101:
52:Simanke v Liu
17:
12:
11:
5:
269:
267:
259:
258:
253:
248:
243:
238:
228:
227:
222:
221:
214:
207:
199:
196:
195:
178:
162:
161:
154:
135:
134:
132:
129:
119:
116:
100:
97:
76:
75:
72:
68:
67:
63:
62:
59:
55:
54:
49:
48:Full case name
45:
44:
39:
35:
34:
26:
25:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
268:
257:
254:
252:
249:
247:
244:
242:
239:
237:
234:
233:
231:
220:
215:
213:
208:
206:
201:
200:
194:
192:
188:
184:
179:
176:
172:
167:
157:
155:0-86472-555-8
151:
147:
140:
137:
130:
128:
126:
117:
115:
113:
108:
106:
98:
96:
94:
90:
86:
82:
81:Simanke v Liu
73:
71:Judge sitting
69:
64:
60:
56:
53:
50:
46:
43:
40:
36:
32:
27:
24:Simanke v Liu
22:
19:
191:expanding it
180:
165:
145:
139:
121:
109:
102:
80:
79:
51:
18:
85:New Zealand
230:Categories
131:References
125:forfeiture
99:Background
58:Citation
93:deposit
74:Henry J
152:
185:is a
38:Court
187:stub
150:ISBN
118:Held
232::
218:e
211:t
204:v
193:.
158:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
