Roose Industries Ltd v. Ready Mixed Concrete Ltd
New Zealand Court of Appeal
[1974] 2 NZLR 246 (1974)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
Roose Industries Ltd (defendant) entered a contract with Ready Mixed Concrete Ltd (plaintiff) for Roose Industries to supply metal chips and all-in materials for Ready Mixed Concrete’s concrete mixing supply plant. The contract explicitly identified quality specifications for metal chips; the contract identified no such specifications for the all-in materials. Roose Industries and Ready Mixed Concrete disagreed about the quality of the all-in materials. Ready Mixed Concrete contended the specific specifications for metal chips also applied to all-in materials and sought to rectify the contract so the terms explicitly applied the metal chips specifications to all-in materials. After refusing to rectify the agreement, Roose Industries moved for a stay under the arbitration clause in the parties’ contract, which stated that the parties would resolve any dispute through arbitration. The supreme court refused the stay and refused to compel arbitration, finding that the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to order rectification under the arbitration clause. The supreme court compared the facts to Printing Mach. Co. v. Linotype and Mach. Co., in which a party sought rectification and the court refused a stay. Roose Industries appealed, arguing that the supreme court incorrectly interpreted the arbitration clause here given that the facts were distinguishable from Printing Mach. Co.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McCarthy, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.