Consumer Law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 / Applicant acquired the services of the Respondent (an arborist) about tree work to be done on property / Applicant claims that the Respondent did not complete work as instructed and without reasonable care and skill / Applicant claims for Respondent to pay the all or any of the costs / Respondent claims for invoice to be paid / Respondent claims for Applicant to pay the legal fees / Held: respondent removed more trees than instructed and without the Applicant's authority or consent / Respondent performed the work with reasonable care and skill under s 28 of the CGA / Respondent breached the contract and is liable to pay compensation for damages / Applicant is liable to pay the incoive under the terms agreed as the quality of workmanship itself do not render costs unpayable / The contract did not include liability for the Respondent to pay legal costs incurred / Section 43 of the Disputes Tribunal prevents …
You can search by selecting a jurisdiction, a keyword (for example a name) or browse by year. Identifying details have been removed.
Some decisions in this section have had minor editorial changes applied, that have no effect on the outcome.
130 items matching your search terms
-
NP v KT [2021] NZDT 1706 (12 October 2021) [PDF, 243 KB] -
KK v OW Ltd [2022] NZDT 179 (6 October 2022) [PDF, 128 KB] Contract / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant obtained vet services from the Respondent / Respondent's vet discussed the possibility of euthanasia / Applicant unhappy with the vet’s assessment and sought a second opinion / Applicant withheld payment for the vet’s bill, $402.00 / Applicant claimed Respondent misrepresented their provided services / Applicant also claimed the work by the Respondent’s vet was not up to the CGA standard / Respondent counterclaimed / Held: Respondent’s advertisement was not misleading regarding their expertise with horses / Duty of reasonable care and skill under the CGA was adhered to / Applicant did not had insufficient evidence to prove standard was not met / Respondents did not provide Applicant with their interest terms and conditions / Interest cannot be charged / Claim and counterclaim dismissed.
-
TG v NNI [2022] NZDT 139 (15 September 2022) [PDF, 229 KB] Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Accident Compensation Act 2001 (ACA) / Applicant engaged the services of the respondent to colour her hair / Respondent coloured the hair of the applicant / Applicant claims that this colouring caused damage to their hair and a burnt scalp as the work was not undertaken with a reasonable care and skill / Respondent claims that this transaction was not covered under the CGA as it was a “one between friends” / Applicant claims $660.50 in compensation / Held: The colouring caused chemical damage to the applicant’s hair and scalp / Held: The transaction was professional in nature, and not one between friends / Held: Respondent must pay the applicant a total of $550.50 in compensation, including a refund and other expenses that were not covered by the ACA / Claim partially upheld
-
SH v TS [2022] NZDT 110 (2 September 2022) [PDF, 123 KB] Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Respondent advertised car via online platform / Applicant viewed and test drove car at car yard which was Respondent’s place of work / Respondent sold car to Applicant / head gasket blown after three days of use by Applicant / Applicant claims goods were not of “acceptable quality” or fit for purpose under s 7 of the CGA / Respondent claims car was sold privately and not subject to the CGA / Held: car was sold in trade and is covered by the CGA / Respondent to pay Applicant $2,500.00, being purchase price of car / car is to be made available for Respondent to collect / Claim allowed.
-
FV v UE Ltd [2022] NZDT 140 (1 September 2022) [PDF, 179 KB] Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant purchased a tumble dryer (dryer 1) for their rental property / Dryer 1 developed a heating fault / The applicant contacted the respondent for repair or replacement / The respondent was unsure as to whether or not the applicant had purchased dryer 1 from them / The respondent replaced the dryer with a second one (dryer 2) / Dryer 2 developed problems with overheating / Applicant complained to respondent / Respondent arranged for dryer 2 to be repaired / Applicant claims dryer 1 was purchased from the respondent / Applicant claims $6,000.00 in compensation / Held: On the balance of evidence the applicant was unable to prove that dryer 1 was purchased from the respondents / Held: dryer 2 was covered by the CGA, but as dryer 1 could not be proved to be purchased from the respondent then the applicant had effectively received a dryer free of charge / Claim Dismissed
-
SC v CX [2022] NZDT 116 (2 August 2022) [PDF, 204 KB] Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant rented holiday home from Respondent / Applicant was unhappy with the cleanliness of the property / Applicant advised the Respondent of the issues / Respondent organised a cleaner to remedy the problem / Applicant claimed $1560.00, a 50% reduction in the holiday home rental / Held: evidence was inconsistent and did not fully support the claim / Respondent provided a remedy within a reasonable amount of time / Holiday home found to be reasonably clean / Respondent was not in breach of the contract or of the CGA / Claim dismissed.
-
MZ v GU Ltd [2022] NZDT 56 (5 May 2022) [PDF, 143 KB] Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant purchased DIY electric gate motor from Respondent for $676 / Motor supplied pre-wired for battery power with installation instructions and manual showing two different power supply options / Applicant connected motor to AC power supply not battery / Gate did not move and motor smoked when checked / Applicant returned motor / Respondent did not find any problems with motor and returned it / Applicant hired electrician who found motor supplied without cable needed to connect to AC instead of battery / Applicant claims replacement motor, refund of $105 shipping fee and payment for $300 electrician fees / Held: motor supplied acceptable quality under CGA / problems were because it was connected to AC power when wired for battery power / Held: Respondent did not make false or misleading representations when advertising motor / nothing untrue in the advertising / described as DIY product and came with thorough instructions / Claim di…
-
KM v BE [2022] NZDT 25 (29 April 2022) [PDF, 196 KB] Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant purchased TV unit from Respondent for $300 / TV unit defective / Applicant filed Disputes Tribunal claim / Applicant requested $345.00 refund to cover costs / Respondent refused / Applicant retained TV unit for 9 months / Applicant claims refund under CGA / Respondent claims Applicant forfeited right to refund due to retaining TV unit for 9 months section 20 of the CGA / Held: Applicant was entitled to refund / Held: Applicant forfeited right to refund / Applicant had sufficient time to return unit and obtain refund / claim dismissed.
-
EL v FO [2022] NZDT 8 (28 April 2022) [PDF, 228 KB] Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant contracted Respondent to make a 21st birthday cake / Applicant provided details for the cake design including a request for marbled filling/ Cake was not marbled and Applicant was disappointed with cake provided / Applicant was offered a refund but chose to take the cake / Whether Respondent iced the cake with reasonable care and skill in accordance with the agreement / Whether Applicant was entitled to a refund / Held: lack of marbling does not justify a refund nor does it devalue the cake / Cake was iced in accordance with instructions / Not satisfied that the Respondent breached her obligations under the contract or the CGA / Applicant deemed to have accepted the cake by taking possession of it after being offered a refund / No refund justified / Claim dismissed.
-
NQ v HN [2022] NZDT 38 (6 April 2022) [PDF, 183 KB] Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant purchased working dog from Respondent for $2,000 / Dog suffered prolapse within a few months and Applicant had it put down / Applicant claims refund of $2,000 purchase price / Held: Applicant does not satisfy requirements of CGA / Working dogs are not ordinarily purchased for domestic needs / Insufficient evidence to prove dog sold with defect / Claim dismissed.
-
LK v H Ltd [2022] NZDT 28 (1 March 2022) [PDF, 181 KB] Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant booked swimming lessons for daughters / Due to a Covid-19 lockdown Respondent cancelled the lessons / Respondent offered the Applicant credit, but they declined this / Applicant claimed refund under CGA / Held: Respondent had no option but to cancel lessons following the Covid-19 pandemic lockdown / Cancellation reason was completely outside the control of the parties / Where there is a failure to comply with guarantees under CGA as a result of events outside the control of the supplier, the consumer has no right of redress against the supplier / Evidence did not establish a breach of guarantees under the CGA/ Claim dismissed.
-
FM v T Ltd [2022] NZDT 21 (28 February 2022) [PDF, 169 KB] Guarantee / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Earbuds / Applicant purchased earbuds from the Respondent / After six months the right earbud lost volume / When the Applicant contacted the Respondent he was given a cleaning guide / Applicant found that cleaning did not resolve the right earbud issue / Respondent declined to provide a replacement or a refund / Applicant claimed the sum of $470.81 for the cost of having the earbuds repaired / Were the earbuds of acceptable quality / If not, what remedy is the Applicant entitled to under the CGA / Held: earbuds were of acceptable quality / No breach of guarantee / Claim dismissed.
-
LN v JH Ltd [2022] NZDT 16 (18 February 2022) [PDF, 150 KB] Contract / Transport / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant travelled on long distance bus service / Applicant unhappy on grounds that service was late, poor driving, and lack of air-conditioning / Applicant claimed refund of $66 ticket price / Whether Respondent carried out services with reasonable care and skill / What sum, if any, Respondent must pay to Applicant / Held: bus delay outside Respondent's control / Applicant did not suffer loss due to 10 minute delay / Insufficient evidence that Respondent’s driver failed to exercise reasonable care and skill / Reasonable to expect air conditioning to be working on a long trip / Air conditioning issue a failure under s 28 of the CGA / Applicant chose to remain on bus rather than cancelling contract due to lack of air conditioning / Applicant still received value from trip since main purpose was to get to his intended destination / If a consumer purchased a ticket knowing the air conditioning was not working they might expect …
-
FQ & TZ v QM [2022] NZDT 77 (8 February 2022) [PDF, 105 KB] Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicants booked Respondent as photographer for their wedding / Applicant's wedding postponed because of COVID / Respondent refused to be vaccinated and suggested to proceed as planned or his contract to be either transferred to a vaccinated photographer or be cancelled with a 50% refund of paid amount / Respondent suggested to record the event using Google satellites / Applicants claim for full refund on the basis that proposed service is not reasonably fit for purpose under the CGA / Held: Applicants entitled to cancel contract as services provided by Respondent not fit for purpose / Applicant can obtain any loss or damage resulting from failure that was reasonably foreseeable / Respondent ordered to pay Applicants $599.00 on or before 8 March 2022 / Claim allowed.
-
XQ v T Ltd [2022] NZDT 85 (8 February 2022) [PDF, 214 KB] Consumer law / Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant bought an automotive car item from Respondent / Item did not run correctly once installed in the car / Respondent gave a refund / Applicant claims the cost of the item, mechanic fees and time spent in preparation for hearing / Held: CGA applies / Respondent had the opportunity to inspect the item before providing a refund / Due to the circumstances, it could not be determined whether the item was faulty / Applicant can claim for reasonable consequential losses / Disputes Tribunal cannot award costs for hearing preparations / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $107.61 / Claim partly allowed.
-
CP Ltd v ES [2022] NZDT 193 (20 September 2022) [PDF, 225 KB] Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant entered into contract with Respondent for supply and assembly of flat pack cabin / Respondent to pay deposit of 30% on ordering and 70% upon dispatch / Respondent only paid deposit / Applicant removed doors and windows as Respondent had not paid remaining 70% after completion of assembly / Respondent installed alternative joinery at their expense for weatherproofing purposes / Applicant claimed remainder of payment being $6849 / Respondent counter-claimed $12,927.07 for manufacture and installation of joinery by third party and various remedial costs / Held: Contract stated payment was due “upon dispatch” / Contract did not contain any lien clauses / Respondent was liable to pay Applicant remaining 70% / Applicant had no right to remove any part of cabin from Respondent’s property once assembled / Respondent had right to hire third party to install joinery / Cabin not fit for purpose and not of acceptable quality / Respondent no…
-
AJ v IO Ltd & TF Ltd [2021] NZDT 1692 (10 December 2021) [PDF, 126 KB] Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant purchased washing machine from First Respondent / Washing machine broke down within short period / Applicant approached First Respondent who put them in contact with Second Respondent / Second Respondent took away washing machine and refunded some of purchase price / Refund delayed for some time / Applicant was without a washing machine and had to make numerous trips to laundrette / During Covid-19 restrictions Applicant was unable to access laundrette / Applicant went to First Respondent numerous times for resolution / Applicant claimed breach of guarantee of acceptable quality under CGA / Applicant claimed damages for refund or replacement, consequential financial losses and consequential losses in form of emotional harm / Applicant claimed $30,000 to be paid equally by the Respondents / Held: breach of guarantee of acceptable quality / First Respondent to pay Applicant $119.00 refund / Emotional harm damages cannot be claimed…
-
NH & ND v U Ltd [2021] NZDT 1681 (7 December 2021) [PDF, 98 KB] Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicants hired Respondent to replace their roof / Respondent started work but failed to turn up subsequently / A roofing expert was engaged to look at the work / Work found to be defective / Applicants sought full refund of money paid to Respondent / Held: Respondent breached obligations under CGA and did not carry out work to acceptable industry standards / Roofing was not fit for purpose / Respondent had been given reasonable opportunity to remedy / Applicants entitled to full refund of $17,160 / Claim granted.
-
LC v TL and UB Ltd t-a HE [2021] NZDT 1668 (22 October 2021) [PDF, 150 KB] Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Respondent provided immediate and conventional denture to Applicant / Applicant claims neither denture of acceptable quality or fit for purpose / Applicant claims reimbursement of $2,502.00 / Was immediate denture of acceptable quality? / Was conventional denture of acceptable quality? / If not, is Applicant entitled to reimbursement / Held: immediate denture was of acceptable quality per s 7 CGA / Held: conventional denture not of acceptable quality / Held: Applicant not entitled to refund for immediate denture; entitled to refund of $650.00 for conventional denture plus mileage costs / Respondents ordered to pay Applicant $662.00 / Claim allowed in part.
-
BD & NL v CM Ltd t-a HD [2021] NZDT 1669 (14 October 2021) [PDF, 277 KB] Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicants purchased cooker from Respondent / Applicants’ had issues with cooker, no replacement parts available and have replaced cooker / Applicants’ claim damages of $9,097.87 from Respondent for costs of refund and replacement of cooker / Is cooker not of acceptable quality and/or not fit for purpose? / Is Respondent Manufacturer of Cooker; if so, did Respondent faile to take reasonable action to ensure facilities for repair of cooker and supply parts were available? / Did Respondent engage in conduct misleading or deceptive? / If so, are Applicants entitled to remedy and is remedy claimed proved and reasonable? / Held: cooker not of acceptable quality or reasonably fit for purpose / Evidence shows issue with cooker and no evidence that Applicants’ did not care appropriately for the cooker / Held: Respondent manufacturer of cooker under s 12 of CGA / Held: Respondent in capacity of manufacturer of cooker failed to comply with s 12 of CGA / Appli…
-
SJ & NY v XT Ltd [2021] NZDT 1644 (6 October 2021) [PDF, 206 KB] Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Respondent relocated water meter on Applicants rental property, a leak developed / Respondent agreed to fix leak and provide leak allowance for lost water / Applicants reported further leak, Respondent carried out repairs / Respondent provided further leak allowances and partially paid for water use invoices and charged Applicants for remaining cost / Applicants claim amount charged for estimated water usage excessive / Applicants claim $5,000 for declaration of non-liability on outstanding invoice of $1,056.80 plus damages for distress and time spent resolving matter / Held: Applicant not liable to pay Respondent $289.80 / Respondent overestimated usage / Insufficient evidence of quantifiable loss to award damages / Claim allowed
-
NU v KD Ltd & QJ Ltd & GE Ltd [2021] NZDT 1550 (9 September 2021) [PDF, 194 KB] Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Guarantee of acceptable quality / Rejection of goods / Damages / Applicant purchased car from Respondent in January 2019 / Mechanical breakdown insurance was taken out in relation to the car with the Second Respondent / In March 2020 the car’s engine was replaced by the Third Respondent / Applicant states replacement engine has failed and claims refund of purchase price and repair costs / Held: Applicant not entitled to reject car and receive refund from Respondent / Lost right to reject goods as not done within reasonable time per s 20 CGA / Held: Applicant entitled to damages of $1844.12 from Respondent / Car not of acceptable quality per s 18 CGA / Claim allowed in part / Claim against Second and Third Respondents dismissed
-
SH v CO & D Ltd & C Ltd & N Ltd [2021] NZDT 1615 (9 August 2021) [PDF, 237 KB] Contract / The Building Act 2004 / Consumers Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased house from Second Respondent / Respondent Director of Second Respondent / House built and warranty issued by Third Respondent / Applicant claims for defective painting and defective sewer pump / What were terms of contract / Whether the CGA applies to the build / Whether sewer pump fit for purpose / Whether reasonable care and skill exercised in painting and was it fit for purpose / Whether failure to transfer warranty on time / Whether Respondent personally liable / Whether defects covered by warranty / Whether Appellant entitled to relief / Held: both the Builder under the Project Management contract and the developer are liable for any breach of implied statutory warranty under the Building Act concerning any failure to exercise reasonable care and skill in providing painting service / Held: sewer pump is a good under the CGA / Must be of acceptable quality and fit for purpose under ss 6 and 8 CGA…
-
BX v PN Ltd & NN Ltd [2021] NZDT 1575 (5 August 2021) [PDF, 215 KB] Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Guarantee goods of acceptable quality / Applicant purchased boat from Respondent / Applicant experienced issues with boat emailing Respondent describing the problem and claiming a refund under the CGA as he had lost confidence in saftey of boat / Respondent inspected boat and found nothing wrong with factory workmanship, advised manufacturer would supply replacement boat / Applicant claims refund of purchase price of boat plus freight costs and compensation for loss of use of boat / Held: problem with boat more likely than not a manufacturing issue / Held: problem does not render boat unsafe, not a substantial failue that renders boat unfit for purpose / Claim dismissed
-
KT & OX & SX v P Ltd [2021] NZDT 1614 (4 August 2021) [PDF, 164 KB] Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants engaged Respondent to carry out electrical work for water pump on new water bore in 2017 / Applicants had ongoing problems with pump which burnt out in 2020 / Applicants claimed Respondents made various mistakes in electrical work resulting in the pump failing / Applicants claimed damages of $6,200.80 from Respondents / Whether subcontractors damaged the pipes / Whether Applicants were charged for incorrect cable and correct cable, if so should some or all costs be refunded / Whether Respondent used wrong type of flex to extend pump lead / Whether Respondent did not carry out services with reasonable care and skill and/or whether the services/product reasonably fit for purpose under ss 28, 29 CGA / Whether Applicants entitled to remedy / Respondent agreed subcontractors damaged pipe / Held: Respondent should have replaced incorrectly installed cable without charge / Incorrect flex used / Respondent failed to carry out services with r…