In a clear reminder of the importance of disclaimer clauses, a woman has lost part a High Court of leaky claim due to a technicality.
Jessica Astridge bought a Wellington apartment in 2001, which turned out to be leaky. Most of the apartments, located in Newtown, are rented to Massey
Want to read more? It's easy.
Choose your subscription
Already have an account? Login
Smartphone Only Subscription
NZ$29.95 / monthly
Monthly Premium Online Subscription
NZ$49.95 / monthly
Smartphone Only Annual Subscription
NZ$299.00 / yearly
Yearly Premium Online Subscription
NZ$499.00 / yearly
Premium Group Membership 10 Users
NZ$385+GST / monthly
$38.5 per user - Pay by monthly credit card debitPremium Group Membership 20 Users
NZ$660+GST / monthly
$33 per user - Pay by monthly credit card debitPremium Group Membership 50 Users
NZ$1375+GST / monthly
$27.5 per user - Pay by monthly credit card debitPremium Group Membership 100 Users
NZ$2100+GST / monthly
$21 per user - Pay by monthly credit card debitYearly Premium Online Subscription + NBR Marketplace
NZ$999.00 / yearly
Individual
Group membership
NBR Marketplace
Victoria Young for NBR NZ Property Investor
Tue, 22 Jul 2014
Tue, 22 Jul 2014
© All content copyright NBR. Do not reproduce in any form without permission, even if you have a paid subscription.
Building inspector avoids leaky liability through third party clause
39707