Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant claimed the Respondent performed unsatisfactory repair work on her car / Applicant had left instructions that Respondent was to provide particular mechanical work on her vehicle / Respondent conducted requested tasks but also some additional unrequested tasks / Applicant claimed her car did not drive well after the Respondent's repairs / Applicant went to another mechanic who found several issues with her vehicle / Applicant believed additional repair work was required due to the Respondent's repairs / Respondent claimed that the issues were a result of a blown gasket and not their repair work / Applicant claimed $1,312.84 in compensation / Held: Respondent had not carried out work with reasonable care and skill / Respondent's repair work was not fit for purpose / Respondent had erroneously described work performed /  Respondent ordered to pay $1,028.85 to Applicant / Claim granted.

Contract / Contra Proferentum / Applicant entered contract with Respondent for house design work / Applicant had paid $11,040.00 and Respondent had completed much of the work before dispute arose over whether Council fees were included in contract / Applicant claims full refund of $11,040.00 / Respondent counterclaims for $12,000.00, comprising $4,657.50 for partial completion, $2,530.00 for cost of third party resource consent work and $3,000.00 for legal costs, time spent and interest / Held: agreement covered Council deposit fees but not structural design fees / Respondent implicitly accepted Applicant’s interpretation of contract but it is unreasonable to understand contract fees to cover full amount of Council fees / Held: Applicant not entitled to refund / work was already undertaken and it is possible for the work to be continued / claim and counterclaim dismissed.

Contract / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicant discussed laying his driveway with Second Respondent / Second Respondent issued an invoice from First Respondent / Applicant paid $19,665.00 to Second Respondent / Second Respondent not a legal entity / Work was not done / Question of who was the party to the contract / Held: Second Respondent cannot be a party to the contract as they were not a legal entity / First Respondent was a party to contract / Second Respondent engaged in conduct that was misleading or likely to mislead / Legislation provided that if a person suffered loss by such conduct of another person, an order can be directed that person pay amount of the loss to the other / Second Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $19,665.00 / Claim against First Respondent dismissed / Claim against Second Respondent granted.

Tort / Contract / Negligence / Contra Proferentum / Applicant had assets located within Respondent’s property / There was an outage in the service provided by Applicant / Applicant investigated outage / Outage appears to have been caused by a fire in Respondent’s premises / Applicants claim that Respondent’s tenants were negligent and caused the fire / Applicant also claims that Respondent, as the landlord, is contractually liable for the damage / For negligence a third party report was used by the Applicant as evidence / Respondent’s tenant’s insurer’s report was also used in evidence / Held: there is insufficient evidence to prove negligence on tenant’s part / For contractual liability the word “cause” is ambiguous in the contract between Applicant and Respondent / Applicant wrote the contract / There is insufficient evidence to prove contractual liability of Respondent / Claims dismissed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA) / Applicant purchased vehicle online by swapping for vehicle to value of $10,000 with third party / Vehicle repossessed by finance company as there was security interest registered against vehicle in relation to finance owed by Respondent / Applicant claims $10,000 for value of car and $6,000 in other costs incurred on repairs and upgrades / Held: Respondent did not sell vehicle to Applicant therefore there no contract between parties and s135 of the CCLA does not apply / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Negligence / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent completed building work on Applicants' property / After the works were completed the Applicants' pool partially collapsed / Collapse led to a significant amount of water loss from the pool / Applicants claimed Respondents breached its duty of care owed to them / Applicants claimed $30,000.00 in damages / Held: no single cause of the pool's collapse was proven / Insufficient evidence to establish the extent building work hastened the pool's demise / No evidence that the Respondent breached its duty of care / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant parked vehicle in carpark to attend gym / Applicant parked in neighbouring business carpark rather than gym carpark / Respondent provided parking enforcement services / Respondent sent Applicant notice for $95.00, for parking in business carpark / Applicant contacted Respondent, appealed fee, claimed it was honest mistake / Respondent declined appeal saying vehicle was parked in front of sign identifying carpark owner, which was not gym / Subsequently, Respondent advised Applicant of additional costs, bringing total owing to $320.00 / Later Applicant received email from credit agency seeking $416.71 / Applicant disputed liability / Applicant sought declaration of non-liability for $416.71 / Respondent counterclaimed for $425.35 at hearing / Held: sign in business carpark indicated it was not gym’s carpark / Sign did not constitute offer / Sign indicated unauthorised drivers could incur a fine for parking there / Respondent not providing parking, not offering anythi…

Contract / Resource consent / Applicant, Respondent and third party hold resource consent for proposed driveway / Applicant claims cost of surveying, plumbing, and engineering design work for proposed driveway / Respondent denies liability for these sums on basis she has repeatedly informed Applicant she did not wish to proceed with construction of driveway / Held: signing resource consent application form and paying costs of application did not amount to entering contract to build shared driveway / expenses incurred by Applicant were incurred in situation where there was no reasonable expectation for Respondent to contribute / claim dismissed.

Contract / Limitation / Building Act 2004 / Limitation Act 1950 / Limitation Act 2010 / Applicants entered into a building contract with a previous iteration of the Respondent / Dispute over work done / Applicants ordered to pay $15,723.99 in a previous decision / Applicants claimed they should not have had to pay / Applicants claimed for money paid as well as interest, $30,000.00) / Held: Respondent did not assume any of the liabilities of previous company / Previous company had been removed from the Companies Register / Respondent not a party to the original contract / Claim was out of time under relevant legislation / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent to auction her painting / Applicant believed painting was an original / Respondent believed it was a copy / Reserve price of $100.00 was set / Applicant observed the auction online / Respondent appeared to be shaking his head at one of the bidders / Painting sold for $250.00 / Applicant believed Respondent told the buyer not to bid as it was not an original / Applicant believed the painting should have fetched $2000.00 / Applicant claimed $1750.00 from Respondent / Whether Respondent failed to provide service with reasonable skill and care / Whether Respondent engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct / Held: Applicant agreed to the reserve price / Respondent confirmed with the bidder that the painting had not been authenticated / Respondent acted with reasonable skill and care / No evidence of misleading or deceptive conduct by the Respondent / Applicant not proved any wrongdoing by the Respondent / Claim dismisse…

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant booked international travel with the Respondent / First flight into their transition city arrived late / Outbound flight was overbooked and the Applicant's family were unable to board / No further flights for a few days so the Applicant's family opted to return home / Applicant claimed Respondent failed to carry out their job with reasonable care and skill / Applicant claimed communication was poor with the Respondent / Applicant claimed $18,000.00 in compensation / Held: Respondent was not responsible for the loss the Applicant suffered / Loss was caused by the airlines / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Respondent was walking her dog down a street opposite the Applicant’s property / Applicant came out of her house with a larger dog than Respondent’s / Applicant leaned into her car to clear some items / Applicant heard someone shouting and saw Respondent’s dog lying on the footpath / Later the Applicant received a phone call from the Respondent saying her dog was at the vet and needed a MRI scan costing $5,000 / Respondent refused to pay for the dog's treatment / Applicant paid for the MRI / MRI revealed there was no sign of a dog bite and that condition could have been caused by other factors / Respondent paid for additional vet bills when informed the dog would otherwise be put down / Applicant claimed $6,000 for cost of vet bill / Held: parties came to an agreement to share vet costs before coming to the Tribunal / Agreement should not be disturbed / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Applicant was parked in his car on the side of the road when he was hit by another car / Respondent then drove past and parked ahead of the Applicant / Applicant took a video of the damage to his own vehicle and noted damage on the Respondent's car / Respondent denied he hit the Applicant's car / Respondent also heard a crash and saw a white car speed past / Respondent stated there was no damage to his vehicle / Respondent claimed he pulled over as a witness, not because he was liable / Held: onus was on the Applicant to prove on the balance of probabilities that the damage was caused in the manner he described / Claim not proven to the required standard / Claim dismissed.