Breach of contract — negligence — parol evidence rule — representation — Contractual Remedies Act 1979, s 7 — Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 — Newmans Tours Ltd v Ranier Investments [1992] NZLR 68. Following consideration of the Contractual Remedies Act and Consumer Guarantees Act, it was determined that the plaintiff was not justified in purporting to cancel the contract which precluded the first defendant from completing the work involved. Alleged misrepresentation by the second defendant regarding "three experienced painters" and the time-frame for completion was precluded from forming part of the contract by the parol evidence rule ("Newmans Tours"). The counterclaim for the cost of scaffolding was proved and judgment was entered in favour of the first defendant in the sum of $8,210.05. Judgment Date: 27 October 2016