Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased a second hand bus from Respondent / Applicant intended to convert bus into a house bus / Applicant encountered multiple defects and paid $7099.53 for repairs and $514 for camp ground expenses/ Applicant claimed for repayment of expenses / Held: Applicant did not purchase bus as consumer and not entitled to protection under the CGA / No warranties relating to quality or fitness for purpose implied in contract of sale / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Respondents engaged Applicant for tiling work / No prior quote was supplied to or sought by Respondents / Applicant invoiced Respondents $2,471.35 for work / Respondents disputed price, Applicant reduced invoice to $2,050.45, crediting for unused tiles / Respondents still disputed invoice, paid $1,150 which they believed was fair price / Applicant claimed $900.45 for balance of outstanding invoice / Held: Applicant’s charge was reasonable, in line with requirements of CGA / Respondents ordered to pay Applicant $900.45 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Misrepresentation / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant bought vehicle from Respondent / Vehicle had various faults / Applicant claimed $4,740.37 / Held: Applicant cannot rely on CGA to seek remedy against Respondent / Misrepresentation not made by First Respondent that induced Applicant to enter into contract / No contract between Applicant and Second Respondent / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Respondent undertook gas fitting and plumbing work at Applicant's premises / Applicant alleged work done by Respondent not done with reasonable care and skill and resulting in products not fit for purpose / Applicant alleged Respondent breached terms of contract causing its loss / Applicant claimed $1,999 / Held: Applicant not a consumer under the CGA / CGA does not apply / Applicant failed to prove it is more likely than not that the Respondent failed to provide services in a reasonable and tradesperson-like manner / Lack of evidence from Applicant / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent to supply and fit shade cloth / Earlier Tribunal decision ordered Applicant to pay Respondent unpaid invoice / Decision also found shade cloth not of acceptable quality / Respondent agreed to remediate shade cloth at own expense once it received payment / Applicant did not make payment by ordered date, eventually did so after Respondent engaged debt collector / Respondent did not remediate shade cloth / Applicant claimed $2000 / Held: Applicant’s failure to pay on time did not nullify Respondent’s obligations under CGA / Not equitable for Respondent to retain all monies paid to it / Applicant ordered to return shade cloth to Respondent, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2000 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Consumer Law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Respondents engaged Applicant’s architectural services / Applicant worked on project for around 15 months before Respondents cancelled contract / Applicant claimed $17,934.54 for unpaid invoices / Respondents counter-claimed $24,263.71 refund of invoices paid / Held: agreement was that Applicant would charge no more than $28,750 plus 20% for core services, additional services to be charged at hourly rate with approval / Applicant breached contract by not completing agreed work within agreed price / Applicant also breached CGA by not providing services with reasonable care and skill / Applicant did not deliberately underquote, was not in breach of FTA / Applicant’s work still of some value to Respondents, Respondents not entitled to full refund / Applicant ordered to pay Respondents $5,863.31 / Claim dismissed, counterclaim allowed in part.  

Consumers Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant parked his car in Respondent’s yard / Car was moved to different boarded by tall pine trees / Natural disaster occurred causing a tree to fall on the windscreen of Applicant’s car / Signs at yard stated owners of vehicles would park at their own risk of damage and theft / Applicant states Respondent is liable for its damage / Applicant claimed damages of $3,731.23 / Held: Respondent provided services with reasonable care and skill / Signs indicated that cars parked in yard were at owner’s risk / Extreme weather event caused damage of car independent of human control / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant purchased CCTV cameras from Respondent via an online auction / Auction automatically sent Applicant's address which was incorrect / Applicant emailed correct address to Respondent before goods were shipped and Respondent replied / Respondent sent cameras to wrong address / Recipient refused to return cameras / Applicant sought refund of $629.95 and costs / Held: CGA provided a guarantee as to delivery / As Applicant updated his address before cameras were sent, liability for undelivered goods remained with seller / Respondent ordered to refund purchase price of $629.95 / Costs claim dismissed / Claim granted in part.

Contract / Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Caveat Emptor / Respondent purchased 7 lots at auction from Applicant / Lots 1 through 6 were purchased and delivered for $6,229.20 / Lot 7 yet to be paid / Respondent had lots 1-6 tested and found that they were fake / Respondent believes lot 7 probably fake / Respondent refuses to pay $1,638 for lot 7 and courier fees / Held: Caveat Emptor rule applies / Applicant not responsible for quality of goods unless misrepresented / No misrepresentation found under CGA and FTA / No reason for lot 7 to be presumed fake by Respondent / Respondent to pay applicant $1,638 for lot 7 / Applicant to deliver lot 7 items to Respondent / Respondent’s counterclaim dismissed / Applicant's claim allowed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant contracted Respondent to perform construction work / Applicant claims work done by Respondent was not undertaken with due care and skill, as laid out in the CGA, and claims $2,755.32 in compensation / Held: Respondent did not undertake work with requisite care and skill / evidence that tools were not suitable for the work / Respondent to pay Applicant compensation of $2,755.32 / Claim granted.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant purchased smart watch from Respondent / After 3 or more years applicant noticed part of the watch had fallen off / Watch could not be worn or used for swimming due to missing part / Applicant claims watch was not fit for purpose under section 7 of the CGA / Applicant claims watch was also non-compliant with sections 6 and 8 of the CGA / Respondent claims goods were fit for purpose for the warrantable period (2 years) / Held: watch was fit for purpose / reasonable consumer would not expect a smart watch to retain all characteristics and functionality after 3 years / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicants contracted with respondents to make a 3D model of their newborn baby / Respondents agreed and many camera shots were taken in order to create the model of the baby in exchange for $2,4800.00 / Applicants had several complaints about the model and claim they should not have to pay the remaining $1,240.00 / Applicants claim that the model does not meet the standard in the CGA section 6 / Respondents claim that all due care and skill was taken in light of the available technology / Held: The applicants are to pay the respondents the remaining $1,240.00 /  The 3D printed baby was made with all due care and skill given the available technology / Claim dismissed

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicants purchased tickets to do a mountain walk form the respondents / The Department of Conservation (DOC) had restrictions on where these mountain walks could go / Tickets purchased by the applicants were non-refundable / Parties claim they are entitled to a refund of the tickets / Applicants claim that the DOC restrictions were unknown at the time they purchased the tickets / Respondents claim that the DOC restrictions were common knowledge / Respondents claim that they have discharged their duty under CGA / Held: Insufficient evidence to show that the applicants knew of the restrictions / Tickets are ordered refunded / Booking fee not refunded / Claim partially upheld