In Rondova v When Routine Bites Hard Limited  NZHC 267, Justice Woodhouse examined when a misrepresentation will be brought to the knowledge of a purchaser and when it will induce a purchaser to enter a contract. He allowed the vendor's appeal from the District Court proceedings, on the basis that when a purchaser wishes to cancel on the grounds of a misrepresentation that has substantially altered the benefit or burden of the contract, but that misrepresentation is capable of rectification, the purchaser must first issue a notice making time of the essence, before cancelling if the situation is not redeemed. If this notice is not given by the purchaser, any purported cancellation will be invalid. This was an extension of the application of section 7(4)(b) of the Contractual Remedies Act 1979 in Mana Property Trustee Ltd v James Development Ltd  NZSC 90.
Justice Woodhouse also commented on the issue of whether a purchaser company will be taken to have sufficient knowledge of a representation where it has been made by the vendor to a person associated with the purchaser company. In this case, the original enquiry regarding the property was made by Mr Dawson. The representation was made to him, and he advised that he would submit a tender. A tender was subsequently received in the name of the company (WRBHL). The vendor claimed that she did not link the company with Mr Dawson by the relevant date on which she accepted the tender. However, the tender document, its backing sheet, and the cheque that accompanied them all mentioned Mr Dawson. The Court found that the vendor knew by the relevant date that Mr Dawson was purchasing the property through his company WRBHL, and so the purchaser was entitled to rely on the representation previously made to Mr Dawson.