Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent delivered parcel to Applicant’s property /  Applicant had parcel protector letterbox on property / Respondent’s courier driver dropped parcel over gate with a ‘Beware of the Dog’ sign on it / Applicant’s dogs roam freely within his property / When Applicant returned home, he discovered remnants of the parcel strewn across his property, including three socks / One sock was missing / Applicant suspected one of his dogs had eaten the sock / One of the Applicant dog’s became unwell and required surgery to remove a sock / Dog made a full recovery following surgery / Applicant claimed $4241.38 from Respondent for vet bills / Held:  Respondent did not take appropriate care with parcel delivery / Reasonably foreseeable that the dog would eat the parcel contents / Also reasonably foreseeable that vet treatment would be needed after eating the contents / Respondent ordered to pay $4241.38 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicant reserved Respondent to do some legal work / Cost for legal work could not be estimated but retainer was $1,500 / Letter of engagement was signed by Applicant / Scope of work changed and an additional retainer of $3,000 was required / Applicant refused to pay further / Applicant stated he had paid $4,500 for the services / Applicant claims remaining $5,798.65 / Held: $5,350.90 legal fees owed by Respondent / Debt collection fees were reasonable / Claim for Applicant’s time and expertise dismissed / Claim allowed / Respondent to pay Applicant $7,598.65.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased vehicle from Respondent / Right headlight of vehicle not working / Respondent failed to fix issue with given time / Applicant claimed amount to have vehicle repaired / Held: not acceptable for headlight to fail within a short period / Vehicle not of acceptable quality if not legally driveable without headlight / Respondent had more than reasonable time to arrange for fix of vehicle or propose refund for vehicle / Applicant entitled to reimbursement of road user charges and repair costs / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant / Claim allowed.

Contract / Building / Local Government Act 2002 / Applicant entered real estate sale and purchase agreement with Respondent / Agreement conditional upon title and the Applicant entered into an unconditional building contract with Respondent / Applicant received invoice from Council regarding Development Contribution / Applicant claimed Respondent liable for invoice / Held: Respondent liable to pay for Development Contribution / Intention of the parties for Respondent to provide Applicant with a fixed price contract / Delays put forward by Respondent reasonable / Compensation claim for delays dismissed / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $19,355.88 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Property / Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA) / Applicant purchased house from Respondents / Applicant advised by tradesman four months after settlement about issues with roof / Subsequent investigation revealed rust and holes requiring full roof replacement / Applicant said Respondents provided building report describing roof as being in "average condition" and estate agent said roof was in good nick / Purchase agreement included warnings about relying on vendor-supplied reports / Report itself outlined limitations including that any other person relying on report does so at own risk and that only visual inspection had been completed / Applicant claimed $23,433.16 as quoted amount for full roof replacement / Held: Roof is in poor condition but Respondents had not misled or misrepresented its condition within meaning of s 9 FTA or s 35 CCLA / Building report limitations would alert reasonable purchaser to fact that more in-depth investi…

Contract / Respondent had dental work done by Applicant / Cost of work was $65,000 / Respondent paid deposit and agreed to pay off remainder in instalments / Applicant filed $38,000 claim against Respondent / Applicant went into liquidation / Liquidator claimed $30,000 from Respondent / Respondent claimed debt was forgiven / Held: Applicant was unable to prove that the debt was not forgiven / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Applicant was engaged by Respondent to inspect a collapsed drain using specialist camera equipment / During inspection, an employee of the Respondent cut through the collapsed drainpipe, severing the camera cord / Applicant sought compensation for net loss of $3,401.83 / Held: both parties failed to take reasonable care / Respondent, as head contractor had a greater duty of care and failed to act with reasonable care / Applicant’s representative also contributed to damage by not reminding Respondent’s workers about the camera in the drain / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $2,211.19 / Applicant’s insurer ordered to pay the first $350 of the sum to Applicants / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Building / Respondent entered into an agreement with the Applicants to build them a house / Building commenced and parties agreed to vary contract to allow different benchtops and gas hobs / Applicants made full payment for variations / Contract cancelled by Applicants prior to completion / Respondent repaid $65,000 deposit to Applicants on basis parties agreed contract was cancelled / Respondent made some changes to build following cancellation / Applicants claimed $4,455 for contract variations / Respondent counterclaimed $13,144.61 for changes to build following cancellation plus advertising costs to sell house / Held: parties had entered agreement to validly end original contract although no party had breached contract nor did 'sunset clause' exist / Respondent not entitled to $865 benefit for varied benchtop that cost less to install than what Applicants paid Respondent for it / Respondent incurred costs for plumbing and electrical work to prepare to install gas hobs so…

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants purchased a composting toilet system from Respondent / Applicants raised concerns about capacity issues / Respondents agreed to supply them with two additional composting bins / Applicants claimed new bins were different from original models and not fit for purpose / Applicants notified Respondent of defects and asked them to provide bins of acceptable quality, which they claimed Respondent failed to do so / Applicants sought compensation totalling $4,700 / Held: bins were found to be of acceptable quality / Respondent attempted to supply bins of the same model, but no stock was available / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicant purchased a car from the Respondent for $88,490 / Month later, Respondent reduced the price on the same model to $81,900 / Applicant claimed the salesperson told him the price would not drop, and that it could in fact increase / Applicant believed he was misled by the salesperson and sought compensation / Held:  no evidence that the Respondent engaged in conduct that may have misled or deceived the Applicant / Applicant may have misunderstood information provided to him / Claim dismissed.

Towing / Applicant had his car towed from the Respondent’s carpark / Applicant said he worked for a business in the building next to the carpark / Applicant also said there was no signage in his parking space indicating that it was not a public carpark nor any signage he would be towed / Respondent stated that a private carpark did not need signage but provided photos of the parking area showing no parking signs / No signage specifically painted in the space Applicant had parked in / Applicant sought a declaration that he was not liable for the towing fee of $396.55 / Held: carpark was not open and available to the public / Private carpark spaces do not require no parking signs / Clear that the parking spaces serviced a commercial buildings, so a reasonable person would be aware the spaces were not for the general public / $396.55 was a consistent rate compared to other towing companies / Applicant did not discharge the burden of proving his car should not have been towed or that the t…

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased second-hand fridge from Respondent / Fridge frosted over repeatedly and destroyed food / Respondent offered replacement fridge / Replacement fridge did not cool sufficiently and also destroyed food / Applicant requested refund from Respondent / Applicant refused Respondent offer to return original fridge upon return of replacement fridge / Applicant claimed $1099 for costs of fridge and lost food / Held: both fridges were not of acceptable quality as they failed to maintain sufficient temperature to preserve food / Respondent was in trade given he repaired and resold second-hand fridges / Applicant entitled to reject goods as they attempted to fix first fridge and got replacement fridge from Respondent at own expense / Applicant entitled to be paid $1040 by Respondent as refund of purchase price and reimbursement for damaged food / Respondent to pay further $50 to Applicant if Respondent fails to pick up fridge by specif…

Consumer law / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA) / Applicant purchased boat from Respondent / Applicant and Respondent had differing recollections of statements made about boat's condition prior to purchase / Applicant said respondent had said boat "would outlast him" but Respondent says boat sold "as is" / Applicant was unable to inspect boat's hull prior to purchase / Hull had pitting and holes so severe it was uneconomical to repair / Boat stood in Harbour Master's yard for two years / Applicant claimed $7000 damages for Respondent's alleged misrepresentation about hull's condition / Held: no representation made about condition of hull / Applicant unable to prove Respondent made representation about hulls being in good condition / Even if Respondent had said boat would outlast Applicant that would not be a representation covered by CCLA as it is a promise about the future / Applicant reliance on a statement from Respondent about hulls being in good condition was not reason…