Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Misrepresentation / Applicant purchased vehicle from Respondent for $600 / Applicant found evidence of water ingress in vehicle / Applicant claimed refund of purchase price plus costs / Held: Respondent used vehicle as a farm car until an incident where it got stuck on side in an overflowing creek / Respondent conveyed to Applicant no water ingress in the vehicle / Applicant relied on Respondent’s statement when agreeing to purchase vehicle / Applicant induced into contract by misrepresentation / Applicant entitled to damages / Total costs and losses incurred by Applicant comfortably exceeded amount claimed / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,000 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant ordered custom clothing from Respondent / Respondent failed to supply clothing by  agreed deadline / Applicant claimed $5,000.00 refund / Held: agreed deadline was essential term of contract / Applicant entitled to cancel  contract for failure to supply clothing / Applicant entitled to refund / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $5,000.00 / Claim allowed.    

Contract / Respondent approached Applicant to develop machine that could cut a block of firewood into kindling in one process / Applicant said he could produce such a machine, but would need to undertake research / After investigation, Applicant unable to construct requested machine / Applicant claimed $5,771.02 for research and development expenses, plus costs related to hearing / Held: claim depended on parties’ agreement and reasonable expectations / Respondent not obliged to cover Applicant’s research and development costs / If parties had agreed Applicant would investigate whether it was possible to develop machine suiting Respondent’s requirements and Applicant had warned it might not be possible, then Respondent would be liable for Applicant’s costs / However, Applicant reassured Respondent that he could develop machine, and Respondent reasonably relied on Applicant’s expertise / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer law / Applicant was engaged by Respondent to install insinkerator / Applicant invoiced Respondent $702.54 for the work / Respondent stated payment would be made upon receipt of warranty for the insinkerator / Applicant explained that Respondent needed to register online to obtain warranty, provided information required for her to do this / Respondent requested Applicant come and read serial number from insinkerator for her / Applicant offered times when it could attend, but was booked up by the time Respondent replied / Applicant claimed $702.54 for outstanding invoice / Held: Applicant installed insinkerator with reasonable care and skill / Applicant had provided Respondent with all reasonable assistance to obtain warranty / Applicant was entitled to full payment of invoice / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $702.54 / Claim allowed.  

Contract / Quantum meruit / Applicant engaged by Respondent for home renovation project / Applicant did not send formal building contract to Respondent until 9 months into preliminary work / Respondent’s bank and solicitor raised concerns with contract / Attempts to amend contract to satisfy all parties were unsuccessful / Respondent engaged a different builder / Applicant claimed, on a quantum meruit basis, $4600.00 costs for preliminary work / Held: parties engaged with each other on expectation contract would be formalised / Preliminary work was never to be charged directly / By not sending contract earlier, or entering agreement for payment for preliminary work, Applicant took risk that contract may not be finalised / Respondent did not simply change her mind, but was prevented from signing contract as bank would not approve it / Respondent not liable to pay any amount towards Applicant’s claimed costs / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant and Respondent owned properties with adjoining boundary / Respondents had fence erected / During fencing work, underground pipe on Applicants’ property was damaged / Applicants claimed tree on their property was also removed / Respondents arranged for repairs to Applicants drains, but Applicants unhappy with work / Applicants claimed $2000 compensation for estimated further plumbing work and cost of replacing tree / Respondents counterclaimed $1,500 for amount Applicants agreed to contribute to fencing work but failed to pay / Held: no evidence that remedial was not done to a professional standard and no compelling evidence that tree was cut down during fencing work / Applicant bound by agreement to contribute to fencing costs / Applicant ordered to pay Respondent $1,500 / Claim dismissed, counterclaim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants had kitchen cabinets installed by Respondent for $18,500 / Eighteen months later, veneer laminate on cabinets had begun to ripple and lift / Applicants requested issue be repaired under warranty / Respondent determined damage caused by moisture exposure, therefore not covered by warranty / Applicants claimed cabinets were not fit for purpose, sought $4000 for repairs / Held: Applicants did not sufficiently prove claim / Defects did not appear to be from failure of materials used on cabinet doors / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant provided workshops and coaching for self-development / Respondent agreed to attend workshops and coaching at a discounted price / Respondent could not pay total cost and asked to pay in instalments / Applicant claimed balance owing $2387.50 / Held: Respondent fully informed of programme, accepted offer to participate and made an initial payment / Respondent agreed to participate and to pay total cost / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2387.50 / Claim allowed.

Property law / Applicant purchased a new townhouse from Respondents / Protected Pohutukawa tree was situated at the boundary of the property / Applicant claims the location of the tree was misrepresented on the plans when the contract was entered into / Applicant claims damages of $25,000.00 based on loss of usable land, ongoing maintenance issues, and loss of amenity value due to misrepresentation of the tree’s position /  Applicant also claims $15,000 for installation of a butler’s sink in the kitchen / Held: the misleading representation induced Applicant into contract and Respondents were in breach of contract when they substituted the kitchen sink without prior notice to Applicant / Claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay $15,000 to applicant.

Contract / Applicants paid $7,246.36 for airline tickets / Respondent failed to issue tickets / Applicants rebooked flights through Respondent’s call centre / Respondent claimed not to have received Applicants’ payment due to a systems error, and asked them to pay again  / Respondent refunded the money for earlier payment seven months later / Applicants paid a third time but Respondent issued tickets with an incorrect return date / Applicants had to pay $163.80 to correct return date and had to return on later date / Applicants claimed $18,000.00 from Respondent, comprising related travel costs, compensation for stress and inconvenience, and $22,610 for loss of income / Held: standard of service offered in the booking process was very poor in multiple respects / Applicants inconvenienced by Respondent’s poor service / Claimed $22,610 for loss of income was not deemed to be a true loss / Respondent ordered to pay $4,426.00, $2,600.00 compensation and $1,826.00 for expenses / Claim allow…

Building Act 2004 / Applicant purchased new-build house from Respondent / Applicant inspected house prior to settlement and discovered multiple issues / Whether each claimed item is 'defective building work' / Whether Respondent given opportunity to remedy the defect / Held: Applicant entitled to damages for defective ceiling, concrete path, poor workmanship on fence, kitchen cabinets, and other basic defects around the property / Respondent liable to pay damages of $22,395.81 / Claim allowed

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent’s vehicle vandalised / Applicant engaged by Respondent to spray paint vehicle and perform repairs / Respondent unhappy with work and claimed refund and legal costs / Applicant claimed legal costs / Held: some exterior paint work not reasonably fit for purpose and fell short of the nature and quality that could reasonably be expected in the circumstances for repaint / Applicant and Respondent's claims for legal costs dismissed / Applicant ordered to pay Respondent $1500 / Claim dismissed.