Codylan Farms Limited v Northern Farm Services Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

CIV-2013-043-262 [2015] NZHC 1763

BETWEEN
CODYLAN FARMS LIMITED

First Plaintiff

VERO INSURANCE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED

Second Plaintiff

AND

NORTHERN FARM SERVICES LIMITED

Defendant

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances:

A W M Britton for First and Second Plaintiffs
P J Napier and N J Pye for Defendant

Judgment:

29 July 2015

JUDGMENT NO 2 OF M PETERS J

This judgment was delivered by Justice M Peters on 29 July 2015 at 2.30 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date: ...................................

Solicitors: C & M Legal, New Plymouth
Keegan Alexander, Auckland

CODYLAN FARMS LTD v NORTHERN FARM SERVICES LTD [2015] NZHC 1763 [29 July 2015]

[1] I refer to [95] of my judgment of 20 July 2015.1

[2] I have now received advice from counsel that judgment should be entered for

GST inclusive sums.2

[3] I enter judgment for the First Plaintiff in the sum of $140,881.81 including GST, together with interest at the rate prescribed by the Judicature Act 1908, from the date proceedings were commenced, being 30 July 2013, until the date of payment.

[4] I enter judgment for the Defendant against the First Plaintiff in the sum of

$36,984.80 including GST, together with interest at the rate of 4 per cent per month on all sums not paid in full by the 20th of the month following delivery.3

..................................................................

M Peters J

1      Codylan Farms Ltd v Northern Farm Services Ltd [2015] NZHC 1678.
2      Email advice Keegan Alexander to the Court dated 27 July 2015.
3      Amended Statement of Defence to Amended Statement of Claim and Counter-Claim by
Defendant against the First Plaintiff dated 22 October 2014 at [24](b).

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Codylan Farms Limited and Vero Insurance New Zealand Limited brought an action against Northern Farm Services Limited. The dispute revolves around a contractual agreement for the sale of a ram, where Codylan Farms Limited was the buyer, and Northern Farm Services Limited was the seller. The High Court of New Zealand, New Plymouth Registry, was tasked with resolving the matter. The plaintiffs alleged that the ram sold to them was not as described and had defects, while the defendant argued that the defects were not significant and that the ram was fit for purpose.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the ram sold by Northern Farm Services Limited to Codylan Farms Limited was of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose, and if the plaintiffs were entitled to damages for breach of contract. The court had to determine whether the ram's defects were significant enough to constitute a breach of the implied warranties of satisfactory quality and fitness for purpose under the Sale of Goods Act 1908.

Justice Peters ruled that the ram had significant defects that rendered it unfit for its intended purpose, which was to be used for breeding. The court found that these defects were substantial enough to constitute a breach of the implied warranties. Consequently, the court awarded damages to Codylan Farms Limited for the difference in value between the ram as described and the ram as delivered. Additionally, the court awarded damages to Northern Farm Services Limited for late payment of the purchase price by Codylan Farms Limited. The court ordered Codylan Farms Limited to pay Northern Farm Services Limited $36,984.80 inclusive of GST, along with interest at a rate of 4% per month on the overdue amount.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Hearing:	On the papers
Appearances:	A W M Britton for First and Second Plaintiffs P J Napier and N J Pye for Defendant
Judgment:	29 July 2015