A-G v Rutherford [1976] 1 NZLR 403 is a case cited in New Zealand regarding liability in the lawsuit due to misstatement negligence
Video Attorney-General v Rutherford
​​â € <â €
Rutherford buys a bulldozer, and is interested in purchasing a 20-year-old International truck that the seller uses to transport it. Finally, he agreed to buy a $ 1,700 truck as long as it first issued a new COF, and he then arranged for Te Awamutu's Transport Department to inspect the vehicle.
On the first inspection, MOT found only a few minor errors, and when the vehicle was brought back for a second inspection, it was issued with a certificate of conformity and a certificate of examination.
Within two weeks of buying a vehicle, Rutherford found the truck seriously mistaken, never noticed by both inspections, and after issuing the current COF certificate, took it to Hamilton's branch for questioning, where they not only refused to issue a new COF but concerned about the state of the vehicle, Rutherford had great difficulty in returning the vehicle to take home for repairs.
Rutherford sued the MOT, as well as vendors in the District Court for $ 1,083.83 in repair the truck needed, but did not succeed in both claims, as the judge said Rutherford could check the truck himself and find his fault.
He appealed to the High Court.
Maps Attorney-General v Rutherford
Held
The High Court ruled in favor of Rutherford, because although the Ministry of Commerce is unlikely to know that the purpose of the check is for the purchase of a truck, that is at least a possibility. In dismissing the grounds of the District Court judge that Rutherford could reduce the losses by checking the vehicle itself, Cooke J said that Rutherford could rely on inspection certificates here because it was recently issued at the time of purchase.
References
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments