Gloria Jean's Coffee

dc.contributor.author	Roberts, Marcus	en
dc.date.accessioned	2020-09-16T21:46:11Z	en
dc.date.available	2020-09-16T21:46:11Z	en
dc.date.issued	2020-08-01	en
dc.identifier.issn	0028-8373	en
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/2292/52903	en
dc.description.abstract	Gloria Jean’s shows us that while New Zealand has moved away from the preexisting duty rule, it has not embraced the radical step of removing consideration as an element of formation for variation contracts. Instead, the middle ground of the Williams v Roffey “practical benefit” test continues to be the law in New Zealand, despite its innate problems and inadequacies.	en
dc.relation.ispartofseries	The New Zealand law journal : NZLJ	en
dc.rights	Items in ResearchSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated. Previously published items are made available in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher.	en
dc.rights.uri	https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/docs/uoa-docs/rights.htm	en
dc.title	Gloria Jean's Coffee	en
dc.type	Journal Article	en
pubs.begin-page	241	en
pubs.volume	[2020]	en
dc.rights.holder	Copyright: The author	en
pubs.author-url	https://catalogue.library.auckland.ac.nz/permalink/f/1v9lq2o/uoa_alma21134163420002091	en
pubs.end-page	245	en
dc.rights.accessrights	http://purl.org/eprint/accessRights/RestrictedAccess	en
pubs.subtype	Article	en
pubs.elements-id	810695	en
pubs.org-id	Law	en
pubs.org-id	Faculty Administration Law	en
pubs.record-created-at-source-date	2020-08-20	en

Files in this item