I like to think I have a reasonable understanding of Commercial Law and I am completely bemused by this decision to force a private company to change a decision. What was the basis in law??? The New Zealand Herald.
Justice Young said he was thrust into "inappropriate" territory for a judge in deciding who TV3, a private company, should include in its debate.
Bloody right he was in "inappropriate territory". He should have thrown the case out & refused to rule. TV3 broke no law. They made a commercial decision that their programme would be better off with fewer politicians (Hey - We all would but lets not discuss that now).
It would seem the MP's applied for "specific performance". This is very much within contract law. two parties to a contract & 1 declines to perform their side of the contract. You may apply to the court to force the other party to perform their side of the contract.
However there is no contract between TV3 & politicians so the law on contract does not apply. That might seem unfair, but that is the law of contract. Hard luck sunshine!
If anybody knows more of the detail of this case, please post on the basis in law.
Comments