After a sample shipment, Ali and Wood signed an agreement based on that sample which had specifications as to quality standards.
More than 30 containers of bananas were shipped to Iraq but International New Zealand Trading claimed the quality of "bananas supplied by the defendants was consistently poor".
International New Zealand Trading brought action alleging Wood and Fresh Fruit were liable to them because of a failure to supply bananas to the agreed quality, misleading and deceptive conduct over representations about the quality of supplied bananas, supply of bananas that were not fit for purpose and of merchantable quality.
The defendants denied all liability and filed counterclaims for the unpaid balance of bananas already supplied and for International New Zealand Trading not continuing to order the fruit.
But Justice Geoffrey Venning after a hearing this month - where Wood and Fresh Fruit made no appearance - said the defendants supplied "defective bananas".
"The evidence before the court satisfies me that the defendants supplied defective bananas to the plaintiff in breach of their conditions of contract and in breach of the defendants' obligations under the Sale of Goods Act 1908," the judge said.
"It would seem representations made in relation to the quality of the bananas to be supplied were clearly made by [Wood]. That supports the causes of action under the Fair Trading Act against her," he said.
Justice Venning said the court was satisfied the defendants had no defence to the claim.
The judge identified $625,807 owed to International New Zealand Trading but said this should be offset by $174,913 from the sale of salvageable bananas.
Justice Venning therefore issued judgment against both Wood and the company for $450,893 and said International New Zealand Trading was entitled to costs.
Read the bad banana decision here:
