Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant had Respondent lay concrete for him but was unhappy with result / Respondent undertook repairs including grinding back contract and applying tinted sealer to surface / Applicant is still unhappy with work and claims $19,658.15 from Respondent which is the cost that has been quoted to remove and re-lay the concrete / Held: concrete work not undertaken with reasonable care and skill, not acceptable and fit for purpose under CGA / Held: appropriate remedy is a full refund of the amount paid for the work / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay $7,463.69 to Applicant

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant ordered vinyl planks with woodgrain effect from Respondent based on sample plank / After floor laid Applicant noticed ‘cross-marks’ which she believed were a fault / Applicant raised issue with Respondent who contacted supplier / Respondent confirmed with supplier that ‘cross-marks’ not a flaw and declined liability / Applicant claims $750.00 as reduction in value / Held: vinyl planks supplied did not correspond with sample in quality / Held: claimed amount of 50% reduction in value reasonable compensation for failure / Section 18(3) of CGA gives consumer right to reject goods and obtain compensation for reduction in value / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay $750 to Applicant

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 / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant wanted outboard motor put on boat / Applicant met Respondent through social media advertisement about motor project / Applicant agreed to have Respondent do the work and install motor / Applicant paid Respondent $900.00 for materials and $1200.00 for labour / Respondent completed most work but experienced issues delaying completion / Applicant had someone else complete work and install motor / Whether there was a legally binding contract between parties and did they intend to create legal relations / Whether the Respondent breached the contract / Whether the CGA applies / If breach, what damages payable or remedies available to Applicant / Held: parties did intend a legally binding agreement / Held: Respondent failed to complete work and had sufficient opportunity in circumstances to complete it / Held: extra $1050.00 Applicant had to pay is value of bargain lost / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1050.00

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993/ Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Carrier of Goods / Applicant engaged the Respondent to uplift and transport her items to a different region / Applicant paid $10,953 15 to Respondent for the service including $998.00 for the insurance / Many of the items were damaged on arrival and some were missing / Items were either repaired or a cash settlement was made by the insurance company / Applicant sought a refund of the amount paid for the service and an additional $14,000.00 for distress and inconvenience / The total amount sought was $25,000.00 / Did the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) apply / If so, did the Respondent breach the CGA by failing to provide its services with reasonable care and skill / If the CGA applied was the Applicant entitled to a refund of the amount paid for the service of $10,953.15 / If the CGA did not apply, was the Applicant entitled to compensation under the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA) / Is the A…

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant purchased automatic watch from Respondent / Applicant sought refund as unhappy with watch functionality / Respondent refused refund / Applicant claimed watch was not of acceptable quality or fit for communicated purpose ss 6 and 7 CGA / Applicant claimed $899.00 refund / Held: watch not fit for communicated purpose / Respondent did not clearly alert Applicant to characteristics that might make automatic watch unsuited to Applicant’s purposes / Applicant entitled to reject the watch and receive a full refund / Respondent to refund Applicant $899.00 / Claim granted.

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Guarantee of acceptable quality / Applicant purchased vehicle for business being sold by Second Respondent on behalf of First Respondent / Rust on vehicle hidden by vinyl covering on roof at time of sale / Applicant claims compensation from Respondents / Held: reasonable consumer would consider rust minor defect in vehicle of that age / Held: Applicant consumer under CGA / Business use does not exclude Applicant from being a consumer / Second Respondent claims not liable as supplier as selling on behalf / Held: Second Respondent supplier under s 2(1) of the CGA / Supplier includes agent / Supplier to be liable for repairs / First and Second Respondent claim not liable as not RMVTs / CGA not limited to RMVTs / Held: First and Second Respondent could be held liable under the CGA / Both party to sale / Claim allowed / Respondents ordered to pay $828.00 to Applicant

Contract / Section 28 of the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Section 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986 / Respondent contracted with Applicant cover band to play at their wedding / Song list was discussed shortly before wedding / Respondents were unhappy with the style of many songs and Applicant was unable to learn new songs under short notice / Respondents cancelled contract and refused to pay cancellation fee due to lack of communication about song list / Held: Applicant failed to communicate regarding song choice with reasonable care and skill, and misled the Respondents about limits of its ability to perform requested songs / Applicant’s failures of communication were not sufficiently serious to justify cancellation of the contract (s 43, FTA 1986) / Damages reflect shared responsibility for Respondent’s invalid cancellation of contract and Applicant’s breaches of the CGA and FTA / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $900.00

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993/ Applicant bought a pony from Respondent / Pony bolted, bucked and exhibited dangerous behaviour contrary to advertisement about being easy to ride / Applicant claims pony not suitable to be ridden by daughter, requests refund of purchase price and to return pony to Respondent / Respondent claims pony as described in advertisement and issues were due to manner Respondent maintained, rode, or fed pony / Held: pony sold in trade therefore subject to guarantees under CGA / Pony not of acceptable quality / Applicant not able to reject pony as outside reasonable time to do so and had been returned to Applicant / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $5320.00 / Applicant may keep or sell pony

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased car from Respondent / Respondent advised there was an issue with the starter / After purchase Applicant noticed additional problems including mileage that was over the advertised amount / Applicant wrote to Respondent listing faults with car / Respondent declined to take car back for a full refund / Held: Respondent “in trade” as supplier for purposes of the CGA / Statutory guarantees and remedies contained in CGA apply to the transaction / Held: nature and number of problems mean car was not free from minor defects even given age and mileage / Condition constitutes breach of acceptable quality under ss 6 and 7 CGA / Held: Applicant met requirement to notify seller of problems and Respondent did not remedy within reasonable time / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay $3020.00 to Applicant

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent performed WOF inspection for Applicant / Applicant sold vehicle / Vehicle wheel bearing seized while Purchaser was driving causing crash / Applicant contends problem must have been evident during WOF / Did Respondent perform service with reasonable care and skill / Held: Respondent supplied service under CGA even though no contract between Respondent and Purchaser / Statutory guarantees contained in CGA apply / Held: Respondent did not perform service with reasonable care and skill / On balance problems would have been noticeable during WOF / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay $1559.24 to Applicant.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Guarantee that goods comply with description /  Failure of substantial character / Respondent engaged Applicant to supply and install kitchen benchtop / Respondent refused to pay balance of contract because no hole for tap in benchtop and it did not correspond with description / Applicant claims $1,750 from Respondent / Applicant claims no room to put hold in benchtop for tap and plan was draft / Held: plan contained description of what to be supplied / Respondent did not approve changes and benchtop did not correspond with description / Failure to match description is of substantial character per s 21(b) CGA as benchtop departs in significant respect from description / Respondent entitled to remedy per s 18 CGA / Held: Respondent entitled to set off of $1,750 against balance of his account / Applicant not entitled to further payment / Claim dismissed.

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Breach of duty of care / Applicant hired Respondent to transport house lot to England / Contract was for one 20 foot container / Goods required extra space resulting in an additional charge of $2471.00 / Applicant claimed for a refund of additional charges based on quote of set fee for the transportation of all goods / Held: quoted price in contact for one 20 foot container only / Contract price based on volume of goods limited to fit inside 20 foot container / Respondent provided service under Consumer Guarantees Act / Held: Respondent in breach of responsibilities under ss 28 and 29 of the CGA for misinformation of volume required to transport goods and that price did not include all goods / Applicant did not cancel contract until after event / Loss limited to incorrect advise, inconvenience and unexpected extra payment / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay $815.43 to Applicant.