|
The Magnum Photo Supplies Ltd v. Viko New Zealand Ltd () (1 NZLR 395) case was the last of numerous New Zealand cases cited regarding whether or not banking cheques for part payment was legally accord and satisfaction. In this case, it was the only NZ case not subject to a dispute, that the creditor was successful in being able to claim for the balance from the debtor. == Background == Magnum had supplied Viko with imagining equipment and for reasons not stated, Viko did not pay Magnum, resulting in Magnum taking legal action in the High Court. Magnum ultimately obtained judgement against Viko for $275,450.95. Viko unhappy with this ruling, filed an appeal with the court, and soon after wrote the following letter to Magnum's solicitors saying they are confident in winning the appeal, and tendered a cheque for $124,677.18 as a settlement agreement. "Whilst Viko is confident of its chances of success on appeal, it is clear that both parties face litigation risk. For this reason, Viko is still prepared to resolve this matter on the basis of an agreed settlement. It is prepared to offer Magnum $124,677.18, plus the return of the remaining Imager machines, in full and final settlement of all matters as between the parties. The figure of $124,677.18 is arrived at by adding the costs and disbursements as fixed by the Registrar to half of Magnum's original principal claim. A cheque for $124,677.18 is enclosed with this letter. Presentation of this cheque will constitute acceptance of this offer. Unbelievably, Magnum's solicitors not only banked the cheque in error, but also posted to Viko's lawyers a receipt which they received the following day. Magnum's lawyers realised the mistake the following day, and contacted Viko's lawyers to notify them of the error, offering to immediately refund the cheque, and even go as far as suggest they cancel the cheque. "We refer to your letter of 2 December 1997 which was accompanied by a cheque for $124,677.18. As advised to you in our telephone conversation (Bagio/Kelly) we were to obtain instructions from our client in relation to your settlement offer. We attempted to fax your letter to our client but were unable to complete a transmission. Our client has not yet even seen the terms of your letter. Whilst Viko's lawyers recall receiving the receipt that day, by the time Magnum contacted them later that day, they said they had not read it to realise it was a receipt. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)』 ■ウィキペディアで「Magnum Photo Supplies Ltd v Viko New Zealand Ltd」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|