This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages)
|
King v Wilkinson (1994) 2 NZConvC 191,828 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding where a mistake is known to one party (often referred to as a unilateral mistake) when a contract is formed, under section 6(1)(a)(i) of the Contractual Mistakes Act 1977.[1]
| King v Wilkinson | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | High Court of New Zealand |
| Full case name | King v Wilkinson |
| Decided | 1994 |
| Citation | (1994) 2 NZConvC 191,828 |
Background
editThe Kings were interested in purchasing the Wilkinson's property, and Wilkinson's real estate agent showed them over the property resulting in them purchasing the property.
After purchasing the property, the Kings discovered that the fences did not accurately represent the true legal boundary, with the southern boundary fence being 3.5 meters outside the legal boundary of the property, something the Wilkinsons would have been aware of, as four years earlier, they had subdivided the section and so knew the true boundaries of the property.
The Kings sought relief under the Contractual Mistakes Act.
Held
editThe court granted the Kings relief, as it was a unilateral mistake, covered by section 6(1)(a)(I).
References
edit- ^ Chetwin, Maree; Graw, Stephen; Tiong, Raymond (2006). An introduction to the Law of Contract in New Zealand (4th ed.). Thomson Brookers. p. 279. ISBN 0-86472-555-8.
 | This article relating to case law in New Zealand is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |