Wenjing Yuan was ordered to repay the balance of a $370,000 loan; money intended as a colleague’s equity investment in a Canterbury petrol station, diverted instead to buy a nail salon.
Having minimal business experience, Kaitan Wang handed Ms Yuan the money without any written agreement. He sold his family home to free up the cash, leading ultimately to his wife and daughter returning to China because they could not afford rental costs while Mr Wang struggled to recover his money.
He met Ms Yuan through a mutual friend. This led initially to a job at her then husband’s fish market. Mr Wang was intending to buy a business; improving his prospects of getting residency.
Mr Wang told the High Court that Ms Yuan offered him a minority stake in a petrol station she intended to buy at Ohoka, near Christchurch. He was never shown any agreement for its purchase.
After selling his family home to raise cash for his share of the petrol station, Mr Wang was told there were delays awaiting an environmental inspection at the site. It was suggested he might help Ms Yuan in her purchase of a nail salon. He lent her money, as a temporary bridging loan. Again, there was no written agreement.
The petrol station purchase never went ahead.
Ms Yuan told the High Court Mr Wang had agreed to switch his investment into a nail salon.
Justice Cull ruled there had never been any such agreement.
Ms Yuan was personally liable to repay $350,000 as ‘money had and received.’ There had been a total failure of consideration. Mr Wang’s money was never used for its agreed purpose.
In court, Mr Wang conceded he would accept $20,000 paid earlier as being part-repayment of his $370,000. He claimed it was in fact a refund of $20,000 cash he had paid Ms Yuan’s spouse for a ‘work visa’ before employment in the fish market. At time of this payment, Mr Wang had been living in New Zealand for some eight years.
Ms Yuan said these cash ‘work visa’ payments are non-refundable.
Wang v. Yuan – High Court (4.09.24)
24.219