Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Section 144 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant supplied Respondent stock / Respondent only sold small portion of stock and wished to return remaining stock in exchange for credit / Applicant claimed $15,000.00 towards invoices / Respondent counterclaimed $3,340.00 for storage costs / Held: Applicant not obligated to accept the goods return / Respondent must make payment for the goods in accordance with the contract / Applicant limits claim in accordance with Tribunal’s jurisdictional limit / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $15,000.00 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Flatmate agreement / Respondent entered applicant’s bedroom multiple times when intoxicated in the night / Applicant sought repayment of bond of $350 from the respondent / Respondent sought rent and miscellaneous costs from applicant / Whether the applicant entitled to cancel the contract / Whether the amount claimed was proven / Held: implied term of contract that the head tenant should not enter the flatmate’s exclusive use area without their consent / privacy and personal security an essential party of the contract / Breach was sufficient to justify the applicant cancelling the contract / Respondent suffered financial loss resulting from a situation of his own making / Respondent ordered to pay $350 to the applicant / Claim granted.

Building Act 2004 / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Implied warranty / Guarantee of reasonable care and skill / Breach / Applicants purchased property from Second and Third Respondent / Applicant discovered several defects with newly built house which was built by Respondent / Applicants claim $30,000 for cost of remedial work / Held: there is an implied warranty under the Building Act / Applicants are able to file claim against respondents for breach / Held: Consumer Guarantees Act applies in claim / Held: Respondent breached implied warranty under the Building Act and CGA ss 28 and 29 / Respondent as builder responsible to ensure work done with reasonable skill and was compliant / Failure of substantial character and defects rendered new building not fit for purpose / Claim allowed / Respondent to pay Applicant $22,674.47 for remedial work

Contract / Music festival / Second Respondent approached Applicant to engage artists to perform at music festival / Shortly after the contract was signed the First Respondent, managing director of the Second Respondent, cancelled the contract and said the event was cancelled / Applicant later discovered the event was not cancelled and another line up of musicians was used / Applicant claimed there had been a repudiation of the contract / Applicant claimed the Second Respondent was contractually obliged to pay $49,000 for cost of contract / Applicant reduced the claim amount to $30,000 to come within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal / What were the relevant terms of the contract / Whether there was a valid cancellation of the contract / Whether the applicant was entitled to all of the $30,000 / Held: First Respondent was liable to pay $30,000 / Accepted that the First Respondent cancelled the contract as she no longer had financial backing / Terms of the contract meant the Applicant cou…

Negligence / Applicants involved in car collision with Respondent / Applicants and Applicant's insurer claim repair costs on basis Respondent caused the crash / Damage to cars supported view that Respondent caused crash by failing to give way / Applicant’s use of flush median was legal but more care was needed / Damage to Applicant's car suggests he was not travelling slowly / Held: Respondent has 75% liability and Applicant 25% / Respondent liable for 75% of repair cost to Applicants car / Respondent must pay Applicant's insurer $5893.60

Negligence / Applicant and Respondent were drivers in a vehicle collision / Respondent was pulling out of a car park when collision with Applicant’s vehicle occurred / Dispute regarding whether Respondent drove in front of Applicant or Applicant turned into Respondent’s vehicle /  Held: Respondent drove in front of Applicant and was negligent / Claim allowed / Respondent liable for damage to Applicant’s vehicle and ordered to pay $5,806.50

Contract / Roof work / Applicant requested a quote from the respondent for roof work / Quoted price of $3,252.00 was accepted by applicant / Applicant paid fifty percent deposit and respondent carried out work / Applicant had no issue with the quality of work / applicant believed he was overcharged due to number of workers and time spent on the roof work  / Applicant refused to pay balance owed on contract / Respondent counterclaimed $1,626.00 / Whether the law provided an opportunity for a fixed price contract to be reviewed / Whether the respondent mispresented the amount of work or materials needed / Held: time to explore whether bargain was reasonable was before agreement was made not after work was done, unless a price for work was not set in the contract /no misrepresentations made by the respondent regarding the work to be carried out / contract was clear about how work would be done and the price charged / outstanding amount is overdue / Applicant ordered to pay $1,626.00 to th…

Contract / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants entered contract with Respondent for repairs to flood damage to property / Contract included 25% deposit of total sum / Work commenced on site in September 2021 but Respondent did not return until Applicant’s insurer paid deposit / Applicant cancelled contract in October 2021 and claims for return of deposit and payment for damage caused by Respondent / Respondent counter claims losses due to cancellation of contract / Whether Respondent claimed to be a certified, qualified or licensed builder in breach of FTA; if so were Applicants entitled to cancel contract; was work carried out with reasonable care and skill and fit for purpose per CGA; if not, what is the remedy; are Applicants entitled to return of deposit; were Applicants entitled to cancel contract; did Applicants breach contract; if so, what is the remedy / Held: more likely than not Respondent engaged in misleading conduct stating he was a qualified …

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants engaged Respondent to complete services relating to their EQC claims / Parties signed contract for services, 4 September 2018 / Delay in completing services / Applicants cancelled contract, 28 January 2021 / Applicants claim refund of $10,420.73, declaration they are not liable to pay invoice of $18,829.38 / Respondent counterclaims payment of $25,078.63 for services provided / Held: Respondent did not comply with obligation to complete services within a reasonable time / Respondent breached consumer guarantee relating to time of completion / Applicant entitled to cancel contract / Claim allowed in part, claim for $10,420.73 dismissed, claim for declaration Applicants not obliged to pay invoice of $18,828.38 allowed / Counterclaim dismissed.

Contract / Car advertised for sale on Facebook Marketplace / Applicant expressed interest / Respondent agreed to hold car until following day for agreed price / Respondent said he would take car for warrant of fitness next morning and adjust price accordingly / Respondent then sold car to another party without contacting Applicant / Respondent claims difference between what he had agreed to pay for the car and cost of getting another similar car, travel costs, and refund of Disputes Tribunal fees / Respondent counterclaimed that claim was frivolous / Held: Consumers Guarantees Act does not apply to the claim / There was a clear offer and agreed terms / There was acceptance of offer / There was adequate consideration / Parties intended to create legal relations / There was a contract between parties / Respondent breached contract by selling car to third party without notice to Applicant / Respondent owes Applicant $2450.00 being the difference between what he would have paid for the car…

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a laptop from the Respondent in 2015 /  In 2019 Applicant took the laptop for repair to an agent of the Respondent / Applicant claimed battery failed prematurely / Applicant claimed the problem with the external charger was a fault, which he should not have to pay for / Whether the laptop failed the guarantee of acceptable quality under the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Whether the battery failed prematurely / Whether the laptop was faulty because the laptop was not charging / Held: evidence indicated that the battery was not faulty / more likely the battery had reached its life of 1000 cycles / Laptop not found to have failed the guarantee of acceptable quality regarding the battery / From the evidence available not possible to determine whether the Applicant had a loss relating to the external charging issue / Claim dismissed

Contract / Negligence / Respondent acted as lawyer for Applicant / Respondent did not advise Applicant about bright-line property tax prior to purchase of property / Applicant claims legal services provided by Respondent were not completed using skill and care of reasonably competent property lawyer / Applicant claims $29,996.40 / Held: Respondent completed legal services using skill and care of reasonably competent property lawyer / exclusion clause inserted into terms of engagement / Claim dismissed

Parking / Contract / Applicant parked car in a commercial car park owned by Respondent / Respondent sent demand to the Applicant for $65 parking fee / Applicant paid $5 of $65 parking fee / Applicant claimed pricing sign in a poorly lit area and sign difficult to read / Applicant sought a declaration he was not liable to pay $65 to the Respondent / Whether Applicant formed a contract with the Respondent / Whether $65 was unjustified penalty / Held: a motorist who enters a public car park which is clearly signed and owned by a commercial operator must be taken to be entering a contract with that operator and to comply with stated conditions / $65 a reasonable sum to protect legitimate interests of Respondent in operating commercial car park / Request for declaration of non-liability dismissed / Respondent not liable to refund the Applicant $5 / Applicant must pay Respondent $60 / claim dismissed