Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Bailment / Applicant loaned First Respondent his car while overseas / Both the Applicant and First Respondent were on learner licenses / Second Respondent, First Respondent’s father, disabled the car out of concern that First Respondent was driving illegally / Applicant instructed First Respondent to return the car / After returning from overseas, Applicant discovered damage to the car and sought $11,098.75 from the Respondents’ for repairs and loss of wages / Held: front bumper and radiator support were damaged while the car was in First Respondent’s care / First Respondent must pay Applicant $2,120.25 for repairs and $400, agreed price for loan of the car / Applicant’s claim for loss of wages denied as he could have found an alternative way to get to work / Second Respondent not liable for any of the damage / Claim allowed in part.

Disputes-Tribunal-Advertisement-Nelson.pdf

Trust law / Applicant carried out accounting work for the family trust / First Respondent was trustee at the time / Second Respondent had resigned as trustee two months before relevant period / Applicant claimed payment of outstanding invoices being $12,062.35 / Held: First Respondent liable to pay for services performed, as trustee instructing Applicants to carry out services for the trust, / First Respondent ordered to pay Applicants $12,062.35 / Claim allowed.

Contract law / Applicant engaged Respondent to manufacture commercial signs for his business / Work was carried out and the signs delivered to Applicant / Applicant did not pay / Respondent came to Applicant’s premises and removed the signs / Applicant claimed $8,000 for replacement signage / Respondent counterclaimed $6,756.00 for unpaid invoices, cost of sign removal, administration and debt collection costs and undue stress / Held: Applicant not entitled to $8000 as contract said the signs remained the Respondent’s property until they had been paid for / Applicant breached contract by failing to pay outstanding invoice / Claim dismissed / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4,488.50 / Claim dismissed and counterclaim allowed in part.

Contract / Applicant had sublease agreement with Respondent / Applicant was to ensure that all fixtures and fittings were serviced regularly by a qualified service provider / Applicant stated they engaged a provider to service the equipment and that repairs were required / Invoices were sent to the Respondent but they refused to pay / Applicant claimed $3,361.33 for repair costs as well as compensation costs for business interruption and health and safety concerns due to delayed repairs / Respondent stated replacement of minor consumable items was part of the Applicant’s obligations to keep the equipment “serviced” / Held: obligation to repair fixtures and fittings remained with Respondent / If the parties had wanted to share repair costs it should have been specified in the agreement / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $3,361.33 and reimburse all repair and replacement costs related to the fixtures and fittings /  Not appropriate to make award compensation costs in the circumstances…

Jurisdiction / Family Dispute Resolution Act 2013 / Applicant referred to Respondent's mediation services / Mediation did not proceed as "administrative withdrawal" was noted on records / Applicant claimed Respondent failed to provide adequate services and sought $630 compensation for legal costs / Held: Applicant's claim not within the Tribunal's jurisdiction / No contract formed between parties / Applicant did not select nor pay for Respondent's services / Respondent allocated to Applicant / Claim struck out.

Contract / Applicant and Respondent entered into a flatmate agreement / When contract ended Respondent refused to refund Applicant’s bond due to concerns about damage to the house / Respondent submitted Applicant’s cats damaged the couch, a rug and some sheets and urinated in a leather duffel bag / Respondent also claimed Applicant dumped cat litter in the garden and removed a window stay / Applicant claimed for bond refund of $640.00 / Held: Applicant was likely responsible for some of the damage such as to the bag and window stay / Respondent not able to prove that he suffered any losses as a result of the damage / Fair that Applicant should contribute to paying to clean the bag and a replacement window stay / Applicant entitled to a bond refund minus $80 compensation to Respondent / Respondent ordered to pay $560.00 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicant purchased a horse from First Respondent through Second Respondent’s agency / Horse initially behaved well, but gradually exhibited bad behaviour, including bucking riders off / Applicant claimed horse’s nature was misrepresented to her and sought refund of purchase price / Held: Respondents represented horse as suitable for person with experience Applicant described herself as having / One previous occasion of bucking did not amount to a vicious propensity / Two vets and a professional horse trainer all stated horse’s behaviour appeared normal / Applicant failed to prove horse Respondents misrepresented horse / No breach of consumer guarantees, as horse was acceptable quality and fit for purpose / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Respondent engaged Applicant to carry out building work / Applicant provided an estimate and said 'extras' were added as job progressed / Dispute arose about progress, extras and costs towards the end of the job / Applicant advised Respondent they were terminating contract before completion / Respondents paid $50,346.95 and a further $8445.34 had been invoiced and was outstanding / Respondents said they paid a further $20,000.00 to Applicant’s sub-contractors and they paid pay another builder $20,000.00 to finish incomplete job / Applicant claimed $8445.34 for outstanding amount / Held: Applicant failed to prove Respondent was liable for further payment / Absence of evidence about extent of completion on termination, dispute about what constituted extras, absence of agreement and costs for extras / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Fraud / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant carried out landscaping work for Respondent / Applicant sent Respondent invoice for $13,801.15 via email / Respondent received another email from Applicant’s email address from a sender representing themselves as Applicant, advising Applicant’s bank account details had changed / Respondent paid $13,801.15 into hacker’s bank account / Parties contacted police and their banks, but money had not been recovered / Applicant claimed cost of invoice from Respondent / Respondent refused to pay invoice again / Held: Applicant should bear the risk for what happened / As a business dealing with the public, Applicant had duty of care to be aware of online fraud and to take precautions / Applicant’s cybersecurity was entirely in their hands and not the customer’s / Businesses are better placed than a consumer to insure and protect themselves against online fraud / Respondent not liable to pay $13,801.15 / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Carriage of goods / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant sought Respondent's services to move her furniture / Applicant claimed compensation for damage to furniture / Held: Applicant entitled to recover rental bond loss and glass door repair cost / Applicant entitled to compensation for washing machine repair cost / Respondent was a professional movers company who failed to comply with implied guarantees for consumers and had not provided services with reasonable care and skill / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2,304.34 / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant had a business making and selling spirits / Applicant bought a pallet of spirit bottles from Respondent for packaging its product / Applicant claimed bottles were defective because of an irregularity at the base of the bottles which was visually unacceptable / Applicant claimed $5,500.00 in damages / Held: bottles were for commercial use so CGA did not apply to their sale / Bottles were of merchantable quality / Bottles were of a quality and state to be saleable to a reasonable purchaser / Claim dismissed.