|
''Polymer Developments Group Ltd v Tilialo'' () 3 NZLR 258 is a New Zealand case regarding the legality of contracts created to prevent a prosecution, which unlike the earlier similar precedents of Mall Finance v Slater () 2 NZLR 685 and Barsdell v Kerr () 2 NZLR 731, in this case however, although the contract was clearly illegal, relief was granted to the creditor. ==Background== Ena Poloa worked for Polymer Developments. After an internal investigation, it was reviled that Mr Poloa had misappropriated $374,000 from the company, which he later blamed on his egambling addiction. Poloa's brother, Katuni Tilialo, concerned that his brother would be convicted and sent to prison, contacted Polymer, offering to repay the misappropriated monies, with the inference that should he do so, that they would not get the police involved. Through his lawyers, Polymer accepted his repayment arrangement on his 3rd draft, and on 20 November 2000, the parties signed a Deed of Acknowledgement with the important clause of: The deed required Mr Tilialo to immediately pay $60,000, plus $15,000 every 6 months thereafter, which he paid the $60,000 plus one of the $15,000 instalments. Technically he paid the 2nd instalment as well, but in an unwise move he gave that $15,000 to his brother (the one with the gambling problem) to pass on to Polymer, which unfortunately (and not very surprising) he lost gambling. After Mr Tilialo made no further payments, Polymer sued him in court for the balance left owing under the deed, which Tilialo defended on the grounds that it was an illegal contract, and so is not legally enforceable. Tilialo also sought the court to order Polymer to refund the monies he had already paid. 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「Polymer Developments Group Ltd v Tilialo」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|