Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant took campervan to Respondents for WOF / Respondents issued WOF / Applicant sold campervan for $19,800 / Purchaser took campervan for further WOF, extensive problems discovered, WOF not issued / Purchaser took action against Applicant in separate Disputes Tribunal claim, Applicant ordered to pay $17,066 in damages for repairs / Applicant now claimed $17,286 from Respondents, being reimbursement of damages order, $40 WOF fee, and $180 filing fee / Respondents acknowledged WOF should not have been issued / Held: insufficient evidence that WOF issued by Respondents directly resulted in campervan’s reduced value / Applicant’s loss not result of Respondent’s error, therefore not entitled to reimbursement of damages order / Costs award not available / Applicant entitled to reimbursement of WOF fee / Respondent ordered to pay $40 to Applicant / Claim granted in part.

Contract / Applicant provided Respondent with quotations for music medley arrangements and performance services / Dispute arose relating to intellectual property rights / Applicant claimed payment for performance services / Held: intellectual property rights do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Disputes Tribunal / Performance services contracted separately / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2,928.05 / Claim allowed.

Sale of Goods / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased car from Respondent and subsequently discovered issues / Applicant brought car to specialist repairer to fix gearbox transmission and paid $5,290.87 / Respondent agreed to pay only $3,300 / Applicant seeks difference of $1,999 / Held: Applicant’s alternative repair premature / Respondent not liable for the balance of the repair costs / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased two home security cameras from Respondent / After three months, cameras’ free cloud storage expired, storage could only be accessed for yearly subscription fee of $73 / Applicant claimed Respondent had told him cloud storage would be free for cameras’ lifetime / Applicant claimed refund of $250 purchase price / Held: Applicant did not establish Respondent represented cameras would have free lifetime cloud storage / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 / Applicant booked Respondent makeup artist for her wedding / Respondent got sick and was unable to provide make up services / Respondent arranged an alternative artist as per agreed contract / Applicant did not want replacement artist / Applicant sought a refund / Respondent counterclaimed for loss of earnings due to attending Tribunal hearing / Held: Applicant not entitled to a refund as she agreed to a replacement artist in the contract / Respondent not entitled to loss of earnings as very limited circumstances in  which costs can be awarded / None of those circumstances applied / Claim and counterclaim dismissed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant introduced potential employment candidate to Respondent / Respondent unable to offer positions at the time but eventually hired potential employment candidate later on / Applicant claimed for introductory fee $26,967.50 / Held: elements of contract not met and claim is not substantiated / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant said he paid the Respondent $12,676.00 as an interest free loan / Applicant said there was a verbal agreement that the Respondent would pay the money back / Applicant sought an order that the Respondent was liable to pay back the money / Respondent claimed there was no verbal agreement, and it was a gift / Held: no contract between the parties / Insufficient evidence to prove it was a loan and not a gift / Claim dismissed.

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased vacuum cleaner from the Respondent with five-year warranty / Applicant returned vacuum to Respondent after it stopped turning on / Applicant claims $2,300 for the vacuum price and tribunal filing fee / Respondent claims they are not liable due to repairer report identifying liquid damage / Held: Respondent is not liable as the damage indicates the Applicant likely used vacuum in a manner inconsistent with its purpose / Disputes Tribunal application is not recoverable except in exceptional circumstances which do not apply here / Claim dismissed. 

Contract / Applicant claimed Respondents requested help to purchase car and promised to pay money back / Applicant applied for finance company loan to purchase car / Purchase price was $41,000.00, and deposit of $16,500.00 was paid / Amount of loan to Applicant was $27,560.64 plus interest / One Respondent left both keys in car and notified other Respondent / Respondents later reported the car stolen by one of Applicant’s staff / Applicant denied any of its staff took the car / Respondents stopped making payments but Applicant paid loan off / Applicant claimed $26,263.45 for outstanding balance and related costs / Held: Respondents agreed to pay Applicant for car based on texts, voice messages, and payments made / No evidence Applicant’s staff stole car / Disappearance of car did not excuse Respondents from paying Applicant / Respondents liable for amount of loan and related costs less the $2,296.72 instalments / Respondent ordered to pay $26,263.45 / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent to supply and install electronic gate / Respondent gave quote of $10,887, Applicant paid $2500 deposit / Respondent began work, said he would return following month to complete job, but never did despite Applicant’s efforts to follow up / Applicant had work completed by different supplier / Applicant claimed $4990 for refund and damages /  Held: Respondent failed to complete work within reasonable time / Respondent failed to remedy failure within reasonable time / Applicant entitled to extra cost of having work completed by another supplier / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4990 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased car from Respondent in private sale / Applicant test drove car with Respondent, Respondent told him there were no issues with car / Applicant had vehicle inspected on day of purchase, inspection report noted vehicle was in fair condition for age and mileage, recommended mechanical breakdown insurance / Fault light appeared following day, diagnostics found number of stored faults / Applicant claimed Respondent misrepresented vehicle, sought $4,999.00 compensation / Held: Respondent’s representations related to his experience with vehicle, insufficient evidence to prove statements were untrue / Initial inspection report likely main factor in Applicant’s decision to purchase, Respondent’s statements not significant inducement to sale / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Car registered to Applicant parked in Respondent’s carpark in excess of maximum period / Applicant received parking breach notice / Applicant not in possession of car at time of breach / Applicant claimed they were not liable for parking fine / Held: driver of Applicant’s car entered contract with Respondent when entering carpark / Applicant not party to contract / Respondent could not impose liability on someone not already party to contract / Liability for breach rests on driver, not Applicant / No legal obligation on Applicant to disclose identity of driver / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicants engaged respondent to provide styling for their wedding / Included flowers, decorations, tableware, Mandap and seating / Price including set up and pack down was $3000.00 / Applicants paid in full and expected styling team to set up between 8-11am on day of wedding / By 2pm only Mandap set up and nothing decorated / Venue able to provide substitute decorations at last minute / Applicants claim for a refund / Held: applicants entitled for damages for extra expense in decorations incurred on their wedding day but are limited to a claim of $3000.00 / Claim allowed, respondents to pay applicants $3000.00