The ‘vision’ expressed in computer-generated images of a pool studio was not mirrored in later plans and specifications, but it was the vision which counted when the High Court ruled Hamilton property owners were entitled to cancel a contract for their $140,000 studio when final design did not match advertising.
Hamilton residents Julie Nelson and Jacqueline Bennion visited prefab builders Nook Homes Ltd after seeing publicity images for its product, a ground-level pool studio nestled attractively at the end of a swimming pool.
The High Court was told of a July 2021 meeting at Nook’s Auckland showroom in which they emphasised the importance of the studio being flush with the ground; their advancing ages and the fact a cousin who visited regularly is wheelchair bound meant that access had to be flat, with no steps.
Nook sales rep’s recollection was solely that of their nephew requiring a wheelchair; he had no recollection that Ms Nelson and Ms Bennion themselves were requiring step-free access.
The two were sent cost estimates containing multiple images: one being a copy of the ground-level computer generated rendering they had seen previously; a second rendering in which the pool studio and decking appeared to be flush with the ground, but on close inspection were slightly elevated on raised foundations.
Detailed plans and specifications forming part of their October 2021 contract did include raised foundations.
Ms Nelson and Ms Bennion did not become aware of installation requiring foundations until staff came to measure up the site for delivery; construction of their studio in Nook Homes’ Kumeu yard was nearly complete and a $142,000 purchase price plus consulting fees had been paid.
They refused to take delivery.
Discussions ensued.
The possibility of Nook Homes selling their pool studio to another buyer was canvassed, with Nook then constructing a new studio to a different design which could sit flush to the ground on a concrete pad.
Nothing eventuated.
Ms Nelson and Ms Bennion cancelled, demanding repayment of money paid.
In the High Court, Justice Anderson ruled that Nook Homes advertised imagery represented a pool studio could be constructed sitting flush with the ground.
Discussions at the showroom meeting made it clear this was an important consideration for the buyers, inducing them to enter into a build contract.
The strong visual image presented by Nook Homes reasonably led the buyers to view subsequent dealings through a filtered lens, Justice Anderson said.
Their misunderstanding is explicable because of the mindset caused by Nook’s own misrepresentations, she said.
Justice Anderson dismissed Nook Homes claim that an ‘entire agreement’ clause in the build contract negated liability for any potential pre-contract misrepresentation.
The build contract was stated as superseding all prior agreements, understandings and representations either oral or written.
Contract and Commercial Law Act enables courts to disregard ‘entire agreement’ clauses in consumer contracts where it is fair and reasonable to do so.
It is clear the buyers were relying on Nook Homes’ expertise, Justice Anderson said. They were sold a pool studio on the basis of an image that would never be realised and this was not made explicit to them before signing the contract, she said.
Ms Nelson and Ms Bennion were awarded $114,100 damages.
Nook Homes Ltd went into liquidation insolvent in December 2025.
They stand as unsecured creditors in the liquidation.
Nelson v. Nook Homes Ltd - High Court (18.02.26)
26.082