Gabrielle Coleman

Everyone knows about the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA), which provides a “consumer” with remedies if a business has failed to provide goods or services to a reasonable standard. But what happens if you are a business purchasing goods? The answer is not found in the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993; it is found in the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (the CCLA). The CCLA implies seven conditions and/or warranties in a contract for the sale of goods: right to sell; conformity with description; fitness for purpose; merchantable quality; conformity with samples; rights of examination, and; acceptance. Not every breach of contract allows for rejection, but a trivial breach of a condition does. This means that a buyer can return goods supplied to a seller. Importantly, whether a term is a condition or a warranty depends on the construction of the sale of goods contract. An important implied condition is “fitness for purpose”. This means that goods must be reasonably fit for purpose. But, unlike the CGA, this condition will only apply where the buyer makes known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required, and that the goods are of a description that it is in the course of the seller’s business to supply. What this means is that when a buyer of a vehicle makes known to the seller that they will be using a vehicle to tow a caravan, then there is an implied condition that the vehicle is fit for that purpose; towing a caravan. This was the case in Finch Motors v Quinn (No 2) [1980] 2 NZLR 519. Mr Quinn, the buyer, told the seller that he wanted a car for towing a boat on extended trips. The seller, Finch Motors, told Mr Quinn they had the ideal car for the job. Not long after the sale, Mr Quinn used his car to tow the boat when it overheated. This, the Court found, was a breach of the implied condition that goods are fit for purpose. There is also an implied condition that goods are of a “merchantable quality”. This is similar to “acceptable quality” under the CGA. The test for whether goods are of a “merchantable quality” is found in an old case, Taylor v Combiner Buyers [1924] NZLR 627. In that case, the Court asked the following question: Are the goods of such a quality and in such a state and condition as to be saleable in the market, as being goods of that description, to buyers who are fully aware of their quality, state, and condition, and who are buying them for the ordinary purposes for which goods so described are bought in that market? Unlike the CGA, the CCLA allows contracting parties to vary or exclude the implied conditions and/or warranties. This includes fitness for purpose and merchantable quality. To do this, the contract must be clear as to the conditions and/or warranties that it purports to vary or exclude. In Wallis, Son & Wells v Pratt & Haynes [1911] AC 394 (HL), for example, the seller’s terms and conditions stated that there is “no warranty express or implied”. The Court found that this did not exclude implied conditions, only implied warranties. If the seller wanted to exclude the implied conditions, including fitness for purpose and merchantable quality, they had to do so expressly. Holland Beckett has experience advising buyers and sellers. This is a complex area of law and Holland Beckett is available to assist.

Frequently, when a prominent New Zealander is being sentenced for criminal offending, there will be discussions about Discharges without Conviction.  Discharges are commonly misunderstood and this article sets out what a discharge is and when it is likely to be available. A Discharge without Conviction is an Order that Court can make when a person has either pleaded guilty or been found guilty of a criminal offence.  Despite the finding of guilt, the Court may consider that the“direct and indirect consequences of a conviction would be out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence”.  This language comes from section 107 of the Sentencing Act 2002 which is the current test for a discharge without conviction. What this means is that there are situations where even a conviction (whether or not a sentence is also imposed) will have consequences for a person that are too serious to be justified by what they have done.  This can be either because the offending itself is so minor or because the consequences that the person will face if convicted are so significant.  Often, it is a combination of both of these factors that will mean that a discharge without conviction is appropriate. When deciding whether to grant a Discharge without Conviction, a Court will first determine how serious the offending is.  This is referred to as the “gravity of the offence”.  The gravity of the offence is more than just the seriousness of the act itself – it also considers how it came about, the personal circumstances of the offending and steps that they have taken subsequently.  For this reason, people who are seeking a Discharge without Conviction will often plead guilty and show remorse, both of which help reduce the seriousness of the offending in the Courts eyes. Once the Court has determined how serious the offending is, the Court will consider the consequences that the person will face if convicted.  In very low level cases, the Court may be satisfied that the ordinary consequences of the conviction (things like it being harder to get employment and the shame associated with a conviction) are enough that a conviction should not be entered.  More commonly, the Defendant will provide evidence showing that a conviction will have a particularly severe impact on them.  This commonly involves the loss of employment, consequences for their immigration status or consequences for their ability to travel in the future. Courts will not easily be persuaded that consequences are out of proportion to the gravity of offending.  Defendants must show both that the consequences are likely to occur and that the impact on them is severe.  For things like travel, they will need to show both that they have no path way to continue the travel they had planned and also that the travel is something that they were actually intending to do.  This is to prevent people from making speechless arguments that they will be impacted when in reality a conviction will not impact on their life.  Likewise claims of employment consequences or immigration consequences will generally need to be backed up by evidence from a person who can comment on the likelihood of those outcomes. In a handful of cases, defendants have pointed to the impact that it will have on their professional registration status as a reason why they should be discharged without conviction.  However, these arguments are commonly rejected.  This is for two reasons.  First, the Court is always very hesitant to prevent a professional registration body (such as the Law Society, the Medical Council or the Licenced Building Practitioners Board) from considering whether criminal offending has an impact on that person’s ability to fulfill their role.  Secondly, in most cases, the professional registration body will follow a detailed process to determine the outcome.  The removal of a practicing certificate is far from a foregoing conclusion in these cases, especially where the offending is minor.  For these reasons, Courts will usually refuse a Discharge without Conviction solely on these grounds and will require that person to face their professional body to determine the appropriate outcome for their registration. There are certain kinds of offences where discharges are more difficult to obtain – famously drink driving.  This is because the Courts review certain kinds of offending as inherently serious.  When this is the case, the Court must be persuaded that there are clear consequences before the Court will be persuaded that Discharge without Conviction is appropriate.  It is for this reason that many applications for Discharge without Conviction in cases like this fail. If a Discharge without Conviction is granted, then the legal effect of this is to treat the person as though they were acquitted of the charge.  This means that no sentence can be imposed on them.  It also means that they will have no criminal record for any purpose going forward.  The Court can, however, order a disqualification from driving or reparations in appropriate cases.  It also does not mean that a person is not required to report what has happened to a professional body or a government agency if they have a separate obligation to do so.  It does, however, mean that a person does not need to disclose a criminal conviction on job applications or travel applications either within New Zealand or internationally. For people who are unable to get a Discharge without Conviction, the Clean Slate legislation provides a useful alternative.  This legislation means that where a person has been convicted of a relatively minor offending (meaning they were not sentenced to imprisonment and if it is not of a specified class of offenses, such as sexual offending) that person will only have a conviction on their record for 7 years.  If at the end of 7 years they have had no further convictions of any kind then they may tell employers and other people within New Zealand that they have no criminal convictions.  This legislation only applies in New Zealand however, and so it does not impact on international obligations. Holland Beckett regularly advises clients on the availability of Discharges without Conviction for a range of offending.  Our lawyers have successfully argued discharges for drink driving, minor criminal offences and even offending under the Resource Management Act 1991.  If you would like to understand more about this process, please contact one of our legal specialists.

In the present economic climate, getting into (or climbing) the property ladder is tough. To get a deal across the line, purchasers are increasingly looking to alternative ownership options. One such option we commonly see is ‘co-ownership’ of property between family members. Taking matters a step further than the traditional parental guarantee of a child’s purchase, we are now seeing co-ownership between multiple relatives (such as siblings and their spouses, or parents and all/some of their children). This is despite that not all owners intend to live in or maintain the property. While this sounds good on paper, unfortunately these arrangements often proceed without the appropriate documentation and can go wrong. Untangling them can be complex where there has been intermingling of purchase funds, family members not being treated equally, deaths occurring and relationships souring over time. What to do if you want to buy property with other people? If you are buying property with others (often who are not your spouse or partner), you should have a written agreement to cover key aspects. The terms can cover: ownership shares and monetary contributions to purchase (including bank loans); who will live in the property; who will pay property expenses and maintenance; what will happen if someone wants to sell the property and others don’t; what happens on death of a party; and how will any proceeds of sale be distributed. This way, if a dispute does arise there will be a clear path forward to minimise any fall out (if possible). Property Sharing Agreements are used to document these arrangements, which are simple but effective. Purchasers can also consider whether funds should be gifted or loaned. Our property lawyers can assist you with this process. You can also read our article on Gift v Loan. If you are wanting to buy property with your partner or spouse, there are a different set of questions and documentation to consider (for example, whether you need a contracting out agreement). Our dedicated family team can advise you on all aspects of relationship property. See also our article on Contracting Out Agreements 101. When it goes wrong A recent example of an undocumented family property purchase is the case of Boot (As Executor and Trustee of Estate of Hart) v Stephens [2023] NZHC 3863. Parents (the Harts) helped their daughter and her husband (the Stephens) buy a property.  The title said that each couple owned a 50% share of the property, but in reality, the Stephens contributed more to the purchase price. They also paid for most of the property expenses in that time. Years later, both the Harts died, and their other five children wanted to sell the property so that 50% of the sale proceeds could be distributed to the children via their mother’s estate. The Stephens claimed that they were entitled to 67% of the property. Additionally, they had lived in the property for 17 years and did not want to sell. Ultimately, the Court held that, given the family’s intentions and contributions, the Stephens were entitled to 66% and could buy out the estate’s 34% interest. Regrettably, the dispute and litigation took a toll on the siblings’ relationships. If you own property with your family and there is a dispute There are a number of options to resolve a dispute if there is no written agreement, including obtaining Court orders to force a sale under the Property Law Act 2007. First and foremost, our experienced litigation lawyers can help you to resolve matters before Court through negotiation or mediation, if possible. If negotiations are not successful, we can guide you through the litigation process.

Firstly, do you have a trade mark registration? If so, and if the other trader is using the same or a confusingly similar brand name in relation to the same or similar goods or services then it is likely you have the right to prevent the use and could make a request that the other trader immediately stop using your intellectual property. However, if the other trader was already using the brand name before you filed your application, there is a chance that you will have to either accept that another trader using a similar brand name in the market place, or you could potentially negotiate with the other trader to see if you can come to some sort of pragmatic solution. If you do not have a trade mark, the issue becomes a bit more uncertain. We have had situations where clients have been happily using brand names on their products, only to then receive a polite but firm “cease and desist” letter directing them to stop using the name because it infringes a trade mark registration they own that predates the first use by our client. In one particular instance, our client was using what appeared to be a really novel and unique name on a food product, only to be told they were infringing a trade mark owned by a major American company (a.k.a. a trade mark owner with big pockets for paying legal expenses and little interest in negotiating with a small New Zealand company). The main problem for our client was that they had spent a fairly hefty amount on graphic design and marketing for their product and had six months’ worth of packaging already bought and paid for. The task of having to delete every photograph or reference to the trade mark on their social media pages was tiresome, but re-educating their customers about the name change also proved to be a headache (same great product, just with a way better name …). That is why we would always recommend carrying out thorough clearance searches before you set your heart on a particular brand name, and why it is preferable to obtain a trade mark registration for your cracking great brand names. It can save time, money and hassle down the track and give you peace of mind right from the start. We can help you conduct thorough research and investigate your ideas before your products or services are put to market and, once you have confirmed your brilliant brand name is available, we can help you with any trade mark applications you may wish to file.