Enthusiastic Adoption of ICS

Question 1

When was the Enthusiastic adoption of ICS

Answer 1

early 2010s

Question 2

what are the cases that developed in this time

Answer 2

-Vector Gas v Bay of Plenty Energy
-Newbury v AA insurance

Question 3

Vector Gas v Bay of Plenty Energy facts

Answer 3

Dispute is about whether the stated price of gas in the contract is inclusive of transmission costs of not.

Question 4

Vector Gas v Bay of Plenty Energy issue

Answer 4

Can the traditional approach be prevailed?

Question 5

Vector Gas v Bay of Plenty Energy held

Answer 5

yes the traditional approach prevailed
Courts should take the ordinary meaning if possible but this can be displaced by context and background. Looked at commercial context, previous contracts and emails = overall context.

Transport costs were not inclusive of the price.

Lots of obiter left the law uncertain about admissibility.

Question 6

Newbury v AA insurance facts

Answer 6

A couple had a collection of Lladro items, and 30 of them were damaged in the Christchurch Earthquake, with a replacement cost of $210,065. Their insurance policy with AA specified that “works of art,” including “ornaments” and “sculptures,” were only covered up to $20,000.

Question 7

Newbury v AA insurance issues

Answer 7

Do lladro qualify as “sculptures” or “ornament’s” such that their cover is limited?

Question 8

Newbury v AA insurance held

Answer 8

The court utilized background evidence to clarify what a Lladro item is and concluded that nothing in the contract excluded Lladro from the plain meanings of “sculptures” or “ornaments.”

Case represented the enthusiastic era of contract interpretation allowing the purpose of the contract to be inferred from the parties’ language within their reasonable objective context, rather than being confined to the plain meaning of words.

Question 9

why is this era classified as modern
there reasons

Answer 9

1. Wide range of evidence
2. Focus on objective contract interpretation, excludes their opinions
3. In line with plain and ordinary usage of words

Question 10

what was the status here of PN and SC

Answer 10

• hint of a different direction with respect to both PN and SC
• gibbons holdings mention SC and vector mentions PN

Question 12

what was the issue here with the motions of PN and SC

Answer 12

• it was all in obiter and therefore it was difficult to know if it was acceptable to run with the obiter or wait for the SC to make a non obiter statement b4 courts can use the type of evidence

Question 13

why did the cases vector and gibbons holdings on mention PN and Sc in obiter

Answer 13

• as they could resolve the case without these ideas being central to the conclusion