drank had to stay overnight. Worley argues that because there was no detrimental reliance on Worley's rule by either Jennifer or Brown, there can be no duty owed to them. However, Brown's testimony was contradicted by Ashley Worley's deposition testimony that she personally invited Brown and informed him of the rule, and by Dana Biscan's deposition testimony that both she and Jennifer intended to spend the night at the Worley farm. Considering these facts in the light most favorable to Jennifer, we must conclude that Brown and Jennifer were aware of the rule. Moreover, having undertaken a duty to protect his guests from the consequences of drinking and driving, reliance of any of the guests on Worley's protection was not required. Worley is liable if either "(a) hisAnd the Government and the business world wonder why New Zealanders prefer to squirrel their savings away in rental housing or in cash under the proverbial pillow. The simple answer is Mainzeal.

No sooner were investors recovering from the collapse of the finance companies, and starting to flirt once more with the stock market, when crash, bang - down goes one of the three giants of the construction industry.

Imperilled are the jobs of hundreds of employees, and the financial future of numerous subcontractors, the latter at risk of being bankrupted for no fault of their own.

Let's also not forget the poor Auckland ratepayer, now likely to be forced to inherit Mainzeal's share of repair costs for a badly built leaky apartment tower.

Once more there will be the same old