solved four “Case study – problem solving” questions. Candidates need to

four “Case study – problem solving” questions. Candidates need to have a good knowledge of New Zealand lawProblem case for example:Questions: Bill and Hilary were getting married on 5 September. Martha, Bill’s mother, was the wedding
planner. Martha arranged for Eatsumore Catering to provide the food and drink for the wedding.
On 2 September, Hilary received a letter from Bill to say that he was leaving for England to be with
Monica, his true love. Hilary told Martha about this on 3 September, and Martha cancelled all the
wedding plans. Eatsumore Catering sent Martha a bill for the complete cost of catering the wedding.
Discuss Martha’s contractual liability to Eatsumore Catering. Refer to relevant case law and
legislation Answers: The first issue is whether the contract to cater the wedding has been frustrated. Since this is not a
commercial contract at least from M&H’s point of view the test in Davis Contractors v Fareham
UDC is not directly in point – the factual matrix of the contract has to be taken into account (per
Supreme Court in Planet Kids Ltd v Auckland City Council. The facts more closely resemble the
coronation case – especially Krell v Henry – as the need for a royal appendectomy meant there
would be procession to watch from the room which had been rented for the – so here the groom’s
change of heart meant there would be no wedding for the catering would be required. The caterers
were aware of the purpose of the catering contract so that arguably it is frustrated.
The second issue is the rights of the parties once it is assumed the contract is frustrated. Section 61
C&CLA any moneys paid prior to the frustrating event are recoverable – those not yet paid cease
to be payable,, However under s62 EC may be entitled to compensation for any expenditure
incurred prior to the frustration of the contract – this would include the purchase of ingredients –
wages and costs involved in the preparation of the food etc,