LegalResearchFoundation

This article investigates the contribution that notions of the Queen and Crown have played in the processes for settling historic wrongs in New Zealand. It argues that the Crown is not a mere cipher for the New Zealand government in these dealings. While many are impatient about such ties to the mother country and wish to assert a distinct and modern New Zealand identity, the idea of the Crown does significant work in unravelling some of the effects of colonisation. The withdrawal of the Imperial Crown left something of a vacuum, which required the construction of some other identity and one to which Māori have contributed their own understandings. In its various roles this reimagined entity represents a personal kinship relationship between the Crown and Māori, a moral personality to which responsibility and culpability can be attributed, and an intermediary between Māori and settler governments. These socially and legally constructed responsibility practices help “work around” common liberal objections to attributing culpability and responsibility for historic wrongdoing.

The ninth edition (2012(2)) of New Zealand’s standard form Agreement for Sale and Purchase of Real Estate contains a misdescription clause (cl 5.4) that allows the purchaser to cancel the agreement when one of the cancellation tests under s 7 of the Contractual Remedies Act 1979 is satisfied. This article explores the history of misdescription clauses and argues that the revised wording of such clauses has largely made them redundant. They now serve no purpose aside from regulating the circumstances in which a purchaser can claim compensation prior to settlement for the vendor’s misdescription. This article argues that there is no need to keep cl 5.4 and that pre-settlement compensation could be regulated by a rewritten cl 7.1. This article also discusses whether pre-settlement compensation should be able to be claimed for pre-contractual misrepresentations or whether it should be limited to misdescriptions contained within the contract itself. It argues that, while there may be good arguments to include misrepresentations, the danger for abuse by purchasers alleging misrepresentations is too great to take such a step.