T A Dellaca v PDL Industries Ltd: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Added {{One source}} tag (within {{multiple issues}}), and removed {{Underlinked}} tag from article (TW) |
m Normalize {{Multiple issues}}: Remove {{Multiple issues}} for only 1 maintenance template(s): One source |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Use dmy dates|date=July 2019}} |
{{Use dmy dates|date=July 2019}} |
||
{{multiple issues| |
|||
{{Orphan|date=December 2014}} |
{{Orphan|date=December 2014}} |
||
{{One source|date=March 2020}} |
{{One source|date=March 2020}} |
||
}} |
|||
{{Infobox court case |
{{Infobox court case |
||
| name = T A Dellaca Ltd v PDL Industries Ltd |
| name = T A Dellaca Ltd v PDL Industries Ltd |
||
Revision as of 19:36, 31 May 2020
 | This article relies largely or entirely on a single source. (March 2020) |
| T A Dellaca Ltd v PDL Industries Ltd | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | High Court of New Zealand |
| Full case name | T A Dellaca Ltd v PDL Industries Ltd |
| Decided | 20 November 1991 |
| Citation(s) | [1992] 3 NZLR 88 |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Tipping J |
T A Dellaca Ltd v PDL Industries Ltd [1992] 3 NZLR 88 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding the requirement of some form of signature on a document required under the Contracts Enforcement Act (1956). [1]
References
- ^ Chetwin, Maree; Graw, Stephen; Tiong, Raymond (2006). An introduction to the Law of Contract in New Zealand (4th ed.). Thomson Brookers. p. [page needed]. ISBN 0-86472-555-8.
 | This article relating to case law in New Zealand is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |