Law 211 says it's Parliament's function, but common sense says maybe a demolition team?

"As I said in Whiting v Diver Plumbing & Heating Ltd [1992] 1 NZLR 560 it may not be a bad thing if a cart and horse were driven through the Contracts Enforcement Act, but I do not consider that to be a proper judicial function."

This was per Tipping J in TA Dellaca v PDL Industries Ltd. Dellaca is the leading NZ case (as far as I'm aware) on the equitable doctrine of part performance. In Dellaca, Tipping J has to contend with two conceptions of what part performance is: acts done in reliance of the alleged contract, or acts done in 'performance' of it. In helping define an act of part performance, helpfully, he comes up with this:

"...it seems to me that there is an underlying theme throughout all the speeches that the act to qualify as one taken in part performance must be an act which, as Viscount Dilhorne put it, can reasonably described as an act of part performance in ordinary parlance."

Tipping J does actually go on to set out useful criteria for acts of part performance. I thought I should add that because the quote above could give quite a misleading view of the judgment. It did, however, provide light relief for me while reading what is quite a lengthly judgment.

As history would have it, the Contracts Enforcement Act has since been repealed and the relevant Statute of Frauds provisions are now included in the Property Law Act 2007.