Published on:
26 Jul 2024
4
min read
Photo credit: Oleksandr P; https://www.pexels.com/photo/woman-walking-on-pathway-while-strolling-luggage-1008155/
On airport transfers, airing arguments, and astonishing outcomes: part 2.
In part 1, we discussed how CL had sued HG - unsuccessfully - because he did not take her to the airport and house-sit / dog-sit as promised.¹
In part 2, we'll discuss some learning points for savvy businesspeople.
1️⃣ Just because you feel you've been wronged, doesn't necessarily mean you can sue.
Many of us would be sympathetic to CL's plight. After all, HG's flakiness caused her trouble, expense, and unhappiness.
But - as we saw in this case - sympathies are not enough. In order to sue, the victim must be able to identify a cause of action² and overcome the defences raised by the other party - whether anticipated or unanticipated.
If CL had consulted a half-decent lawyer before suing, she might have been advised that she might face hurdles in proving that there was a binding contract - not just because there may not have been an "intention to create legal relations",³ but also because it was not clear what the "consideration"⁴ was.
Before suing, you need to know what your cause of action is, and how you intend to overcome your counterpart's defences.
2️⃣ Suing isn't always a practical option.
In this case, CL was probably prepared to sue only because parties cannot be represented by lawyers at Disputes Tribunal hearings.⁵ This means that she did not have to incur the costs of having a lawyer represent her at the hearing.⁶
But if this was a matter for which CL had to engage a lawyer to advise and represent her...
...the costs would start to rack up fairly quickly, and it wouldn't be long before they would up being disproportionate to the quantum of the claim.
Suing doesn't come cheap. It costs money, time, energy, headspace... the list goes on.
Beware any lawyer who eggs you on to sue at the drop of a hat, and before a proper cost-benefit analysis has been done.
3️⃣ Suing torpedoes relationships.
CL and HG are no longer together. No big surprise there!
And, as Kent C. astutely pointed out, it may well be that there was some latent tension or trauma that triggered the lawsuit. Or perhaps the relationship was already on the rocks anyway.⁷
But the point remains: if you decide to sue, assume that the relationship is dead and buried, never to return. Anything less than that is a bonus.
And this principle is particularly relevant when it comes to disputes with clients, business partners, or even family.
--
I have a final learning point, which I'll set out in a comment. Ah, LinkedIn post character limits, my old nemesis.
Disclaimer:
The content of this article is intended for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
¹ Part 1: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/khelvin-xu_footnotes-disputeresolution-contract-activity-7214127376526368768-PjJQ/.
² That's a fancy way of referring to the way in which the claim can be justified. Think of it this way. You want to drive from point A to point B, so you fire up Google Maps. Google Maps will plot out a route for you, but you can also choose alternative routes.
Now assume that point B is the outcome you want to achieve with a lawsuit. In order to get there, you need at least 1 cause of action - i.e. at least 1 clear route. You can't just say, "well, I want to get to point B, so I'll just start driving".
And the role played by a lawyer is to advise you on the best route to take, what are the downsides and potential hurdles, how long it will take and how much in gas money and tolls you will have to pay, whether there is even a route to your desired endpoint, or if they have all been blocked off... the list goes on.
But you're the driver. The route to take is ultimately your decision.
³ It appears, based on the Order of the Disputes Tribunal, that New Zealand law is similar to Singapore law on this point. See part 1 for a succinct explanation of the concept.
⁴ In simple terms, this is something of value, given in exchange for a promise or performance. In this case, it could theoretically be something as simple as a promise from CL to HG to take him to the airport the next time the need arose, or even to buy him a cup of coffee. It could even be $1 - which is why you sometimes see sale and purchase agreements, entered into as part of a web of transactions, which provide that consideration of $1 is to be paid.
⁵ https://disputestribunal.govt.nz/about-2/.
⁶ I assume that this also means that any costs orders made against her for an unsuccessful claim would likely be significantly less compared to those made in the District or higher Courts. Karen Chow, am I off the mark here?
⁷ Although if so, it begs the question of why CL would still have made this request of HG.
A final learning point:
4️⃣ Sometimes, you do what you gotta do.
We'll never know, from the publicly available information, what were the factors that CL took into account before deciding to sue HG. But let's give CL the benefit of doubt and assume that it was a considered and deliberate decision, and not just an impulsive and reactive one.
If so, CL had her reasons for doing what she did. Even though she would probably have been unsatisfied with the outcome, perhaps suing - even unsuccessfully - was something she had to do for herself in the circumstances.
So - you do you.
But find a good lawyer first.
