Body Corporate Agreements
The third point was that the administrative agreement was an unacceptable matter. On this issue, the Court of Justice found that the organization had not suffered any disability or disadvantage. On the contrary, the Court held that there was an equality of bargaining power which meant that it had to fail. ABCDE Investments Ltd – Ors v Van Gog – Ors  NZHC 1131 (May 24, 2012) participated in a 23-unit complex in Mt Maunganui called “The Terraces”. Units 1-22 were for holiday accommodation, with unit 23 the manager`s unit. Each holiday unit was subject to a charge. The decision dealt with a number of instruments: the rules of the body; A management agreement between the company The load and lease agreements. The rights management company for a community title scheme is a valuable asset. The BCCMA imposes certain restrictions on domestic workers and their respective owners and their respective body companies when the agreement is subject to the interests of a financier, including restrictive rights to terminate takeover or leasing agreements in accordance with the interests of a financier. The first is that the purchase and purchase agreements have created a constructive trust agreement and that Sentinel has dishonestly supported a breach of that trust.
Although the Court recognized that an appropriate interest was conveyed by a seller to a buyer when an agreement was reached (cf. Bevin/Smith  3 NZLR 648), it was not the same as a relationship between the trustees and the beneficiaries, but it did not impose trust obligations. There was no dereliction of duty and there was no dishonest help. With respect to management rights, MacDonnells Law has acted for many buyers and sellers of rights management companies, conducted due diligence investigations on behalf of large lenders, and prepared management and leasing contracts on behalf of developers and organizations. The Court found that the rules of the companies had been changed prior to the filing of the unit plan and the creation of the organization. Therefore, according to Fifer Residential Ltd/Gieseg (2005) 6 NZCPR 306 (HC), the amended provisions were never properly adopted and were never in force. The Court of Justice did not want to apply specific provisions. The company rules were challenged, but were found to be enforceable on the basis of the “unanimous consent” rule established in Bobbie Pins Ltd/Robertson  NZLR 301 (SC), with the Court finding that no special formality was required for unanimity. When you are in the process of renewing/modifying your Body Corporate Management Agreement, it is very important that you review it in depth. If you are considering changing corporate manager body, be sure to compare apples with apples when it comes to manager`s chords and fees/duties.
The second applied for a promoter`s breach of the obligation, as a result of the just obligations that a promoter owes to a company of that company. The Court of Justice ruled that a project proponent had fiduciary duties.