Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Respondent 2 purchased a male French bulldog from Applicant 1 / Respondents agreed to rehouse a female French bulldog into their home / From this arrangement, the dog began breeding, increasing the number of dogs that eventually ended up in the Respondents’ home / Subsequently, the relationship between the parties soured, and Applicant 1 endeavoured to cancel the agreement / Applicant 1 sought the return of the dogs and or monetary compensation of $30,000.00 / The Respondents sought an order declaring the dogs as theirs and counterclaimed $26,445.00 for unpaid services and compensation / Held: Respondents breached the contract by retaining the litter of puppies / Applicant 1 breached the contract by failing to pay the Respondents for whelping services / Respondents must return the puppies to Applicant 1 / Ownership of the female dog is to be transferred to the Respondents / Applicant 1 must  pay the Respondents $750.00 / Claim and counterclaim partially allowed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased a house from Second Respondents / Applicant discovered rot in windows and door framing and defects in fence and gates / Pre-purchase building report did not identify any problems with rot / Applicant claimed that Second Respondents deliberately concealed these defects / Applicant claimed $15,643.00 for cost of rectifying or replacing rotted and defective timber / Held: Second Respondents did not misrepresent the condition of the property as they were unaware of the specific areas of rot at the time of sale / Second Respondent had no obligation to disclose defects they were unaware of and there was no breach of the sale and purchase contract / Applicant failed to establish First Respondent real estate company had any involvement in this matter / Claim dismissed.

Construction law / Building Act 2004 / Applicant purchased new build property / Applicant identified paint defects and issues with fibre conduit during the pre-settlement inspection / Applicant claimed $6,000 from Respondent for paint defects and the absence of fibre conduit / Held: Respondent was the builder with legal responsibilities under the Building Act 2004 / Respondent failed to exercise reasonable care and skill resulting in inadequate paint coverage / Respondent did not fail to exercise reasonable care and skill for the fibre installation / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) / Applicant contracted Respondent for bathroom renovation work at her property / Respondent provided a quote which Applicant accepted / Respondent completed work / Applicant claimed she is not entitled to pay outstanding fees as Respondent overcharged many items / Held: no grounds for contract to be reopened under the CGA or FTA / No misrepresentations in quote / Applicant not under duress to accept quote / No grounds for reduction in charge due to number of property visits for work to be carried out / Other claims to reduce amount payable dismissed / Applicant ordered to pay Respondent / Claim dismissed. 

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 1993 / Applicant bought secondhand car from Respondent / Car began overheating and was in such poor condition that Applicant could not drive home / Applicant alleged car condition misrepresented / Held: Respondent's actions did not meet requirements for being actionable misrepresentation and so no misrepresentation by Respondent made in sale of the car / Parties discussed range of issues regarding the car including items Respondent fitted themself / Applicant cannot be relying on Respondent's apparent representation that car had no issues as Applicant was made aware of issues / Buyers' responsibility to carry out due diligence / No legal basis for compensation as no misrepresentation / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants purchased property after they received a pre-purchase inspection from Respondents / Applicants explained that after they reviewed the report provided by the Respondents and after conversations and a message listing minor repairs required with the inspector, they proceeded with the purchase of the house / Shortly after settlement, Applicants discovered a leak in the roof / Applicants reported that to the Respondents who sent another inspector who found the roof to be in poor condition / Applicants claimed $30,000 from Respondents for a replacement roof as they believe the inspection was not done with reasonable care and skill / Held: pre-purchase report stated that the exterior of the roof was not inspected and it was recommended to obtain a building practitioner who specialised in roofing to conduct a comprehensive inspection and report / Applicants made their own decision to ignore that advice which was to their detriment / Resp…

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant paid $1776.75 to Respondent for five cubic meters of concrete / Concrete arrived late and was too dry for laying / Applicant rejected the concrete and sought compensation / Applicant claimed $1,776.75 for costs of concrete, $1,552.50 for the cost of contractors, and $750 for his time and general damages / Held: Concrete was too dry at time of delivery and was not fit for purpose / This constituted a failure of substantial character under the CGA / Applicant entitled to reject concrete and claim a refund for amount paid / Applicant entitled to compensation for two hours of contractors’ time, being $154.75 and $80.50 / Applicant entitled to $143.14 for time he had to take off work for concrete to be laid / General damages not able to be awarded / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2,155.14 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Child Support Act 1991 / Parties entered agreement that each would reimburse the other for any child support payments received through the IRD or any other agency / Applicant claimed reimbursement of $5,932.00 in child support payments and $5,677.35 disability allowance payments he claimed were covered by the same agreement / Respondent challenged Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear claim / Held: Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear claim as this type of agreement was not covered by Child Support Act / Respondent confirmed she had received payments totalling $4,846.80 which she had not reimbursed / Respondent had not received other claimed child support payments / Unconscionable to enforce term of agreement that would require either party to reimburse money they had not actually received / Respondent to reimburse payments to Applicant once received / No reimbursement due for disability allowance payments / Respondent ordered to pay $4,846.80 / Claim allowed in part.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased generator for campervan from Respondent / Shop owner placed generator into van in same position old generator was / Applicant discovered fire in campervan after driving on windy road / Generator had tipped over causing petrol to spill and ignite / Fire caused damage to van and Applicant's possessions / Applicant knew from previous generator that generator needed to remain upright / Applicant alleges breach of Consumer Guarantees Act by Respondent for not informing Applicant of danger fuel could escape if generator tipped over / Applicant claims insurance excess paid and compensation for lost possessions / Held: no breach of Consumer Guarantees Act as guarantees in Act do not impart obligation on supplier to inform consumer that petrol could escape if generator tipped over / Respondent also not liable only because shop manager placed generator in van as nothing places responsibility on supplier of goods once consumer tran…

Contract / Insurance / Applicant owned a ute and was involved in an accident / Respondent covered cost of repairs except for the excess / Applicant noticed engine and transmission issues after ute was repaired which were not present before the accident / Respondent refused Applicant’s claim to remediate the mechanical failures, asserting the failures pre-existed the accident / Applicant claimed $17,000 as contribution to the repairs he had to pay for / Held: ute most likely did not have pre-existing mechanical failure / Mechanical and transmission failures were most likely caused by the accident / Ute was insured for $17,000 / Maximum Applicant was entitled to was $17,000 less excess and repairs already paid, being $10,406.99 / Respondent ordered to pay $10,406.99 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Limitation Act 2010 / Applicants hired the Respondent photographer for their wedding in 2017 / Applicants requested a fusion video to be added to their photography package for an extra $800 / To obtain the fusion video, the Applicants had to select 100 photographs and the Respondent would use a particular software to create the video / Applicants contacted the Respondent in 2024 to obtain the video / Respondent advised she no longer had the necessary software / Respondent offered three different options but these were not accepted by the Applicants / Applicants sought a refund of $800 / Held: reasonable expectation for the photo selection to take a few months’ time or for Applicants to contact Respondent to extend the timeline / Applicants’ delay of six and a half years was unreasonable / Applicants were unable to justify delay / Respondent had offered three alternative solutions which were not accepted by the Applicants / Claim dismiss…

Negligence / Land Transport Act 1998 / Applicant and Respondent were involved in vehicle accident / Respondent on Learner's Licence and drove without supervision / Applicant claimed $13,998.98 compensation for vehicle damages / Held: Respondent breached his duty of care because he failed to take reasonable care when driving and to make sure the way was clear whilst performing a u-turn / Respondent was negligent and therefore liable / Reasonable costs include estimated market value of Applicant's vehicle, towing fees and wreck value / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $12,368.98 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Building / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicant claimed she accepted a quote to redo her bathroom from Respondent who represented himself as a builder / Agreed price was $38,180.00, excluding the supply of tiles / Applicant said she paid a deposit of $11,454.00 / Applicant said that she and Respondent visited the supplier where she selected tiles / Respondent advised that he had an account and could receive the trade rate / Applicant paid the Respondent $2,479.67 for tiles and delivery / Applicant made an enquiry about the delivery time but received no response / Applicant then contacted the supplier who advised that no order had been made and the Respondent did not have a trade account / Applicant emailed Respondent for a refund / Months later the Respondent apologised for his actions / Applicant claimed $13,933.67, comprising a deposit of $11,454.00 and $2,479.67 for the tiles / Held: Respondent breached the contract by failing to perform his obligations / Applicant received …