The recent High Court case of Tumatatoro v HJS AG examines the requirements for an agreement to arbitrate, and the AMINZ appointment process.
Musings of a busy mind
In what looks like the ongoing saga of the Arrow liquidation, yesterday the High Court in Wellington effectively confirmed that demand could be made under a bond, against the owner's assessment of the likely losses arising from Arrow's failure to complete the development of a property for the Chow brothers at 89 Courtenay Place in Wellington.
Most will recall Ruxley, the case of the shallow swimming pool. The contract called for a diving depth of 7.5 feet, and it was delivered with only 6 feet in depth. The House of Lords held there was no loss in value from what was contracted for and the cost of rectification was out of all proportion to any damage suffered.
The Court of Appeal of England and Wales has had cause to consider the delivery of student accommodation with rooms significantly smaller than was contracted for.