Nichols v Jessup [1986, New Zealand]

Facts

  • Nichols wished to increase access to his land, at the rear of Jessup’s land
  • Jessup agreed to that Nichols could amalgamate their driveways, increasing the value of Nichols land significantly and devaluing Jessup’s

Issue

  • Could the agreement be set aside

Decision

  • Yes

Reasoning

  • Although Nichols did not know of a specific disability, a general suspicion of incapacity allowed unconscionable conduct to be found
RELATED CASE  Taskiroglou v Noblee Thorl [1962]

Posted in Contract Law Revision Notes.

This page was last updated on 20th January 2014

© 2020 Webstroke Law - Terms and Privacy Policy