Dear all

 

I am working on a paper that compares the NZ regime for builders’ warranties ( or lack of one) with that in Canada, the UK and Australia for a conference in Auckland next week.  We understand that in the UK the Defective Premises Act ( that played a role in Murphy) creates what is in effect a transmissible warranty , but it does not seem to require insurance and hence would be unenforceable in insolvency etc, while the various new premises insurance schemes like the NHBC provide that insurance it appears that this is not compulsory. Does any one know if this is correct and, if,  there are any good studies on the system, I wouldn’t ask normally by my RA and I have found it difficult to confirm this at a distance ( and there is some writing that suggests that the NHBC is compulsory – which it can’t be because there seem to be competitors)

 

Any suggestions to follow up gratefully received, as would any Canadian studies as to the effectiveness of the various regimes there.

 

Many thanks

 

Geoff

 

Geoff McLay

Reader in Law

Victoria University of Wellington

PO Box 600

Wellington

New Zealand

 

http://www.victoria.ac.nz/law/staff/Academic%20Staff/AssocProfs/McLayG/index.aspx

 

New Zealand Law Foundation International Research Fellow 2006

http://www.lawfoundation.org.nz/

 

View my research on my SSRN Author page: http://ssrn.com/author=83312