Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant claiming costs of repair of freezer from Respondent / Whether freezer was of acceptable quality, if not, whether Respondent has to pay repair costs / Held: freezer of acceptable quality / Freezer repair minor and not unreasonable six years after purchase / Claim dismissed

Limitation Act 2010 / Applicant took over operating business after her husband died / Applicant asked Respondent to pay $19,072.30 for outstanding invoices from 2012 to 2019 / Respondent paid $14,325.40, disputed remainder which related to older invoices / Applicant claimed the balance of $4,836.90 / Whether claim barred by Limitation Act / Held: all disputed invoices issued before August 2015 / In absence of any evidence of unusually long payment terms, they would have been overdue more than six years / Late knowledge period inapplicable as true claimant is company which issued invoices / Claim statute-barred / Claim dismissed

Conversion / Gift / Applicant gifted scooter to his son / Applicant claimed scooter was being held by his son’s mother / Applicant claimed $479.00, the cost of the scooter / Who owned the scooter / If the Applicant owned the scooter, whether $479.99 was a reasonable amount to restore him to his original position / Held: Applicant did not own scooter / No need to consider second question / Claim dismissed

Guarantee / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Earbuds / Applicant purchased earbuds from the Respondent / After six months the right earbud lost volume / When the Applicant contacted the Respondent he was given a cleaning guide / Applicant found that cleaning did not resolve the right earbud issue / Respondent declined to provide a replacement or a refund / Applicant claimed the sum of $470.81 for the cost of having the earbuds repaired / Were the earbuds of acceptable quality / If not, what remedy is the Applicant entitled to under the CGA / Held: earbuds were of acceptable quality / No breach of guarantee / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Credit card / Applicant visited Respondent’s bar while intoxicated / Applicant later discovered he was charged $5,213.00 across five transactions by Respondent / Whether Respondent’s bar used Applicant’s credit card dishonestly / Whether Applicant can get a refund on the grounds of intoxication / Held: Applicant provided evidence to show he was drunk before arriving at Respondent’s bar / Applicant failed to prove that he was so very drunk he could not understand the general nature of the transactions he entered into / Not equitable in all the circumstances to set aside the contract / Contract was fully performed / Respondent’s contractors cannot take back their services / Would not be equitable for the Applicant to receive a refund for services he received when drunk / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Reasonable care / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant and her children were booked into a motel for nine nights / Applicant and her family received multiple unwanted visitors while staying at the motel / Applicant failed to receive an immediate response to their concerns from the motel manager / Later, the motel manager informed the Applicant that they would not be able to change rooms until the following day / The visitors became increasingly threatening leading to the Applicant and her family to leaving for alternative accommodation before the end of their planned stay / Respondent refunded $480.00 to the Applicant and provided CCTV to the Police / Applicant sought $10,000.00 for the balance of a full refund, cost of new hotel and damages for emotional stress / Whether the motel carried out its services with reasonable care and skill / What sum, if any, must the hotel pay to the Applicant / Held: unable to find that the Respondent failed to respond to the situatio…

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant rented car / Applicant mistakenly put Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) in the fuel tank / Rental company claimed $1,000 insurance excess and a further $11,352.28 for cost of replacing vehicle's fuel system / Whether exclusion for "use of incorrect fuel type" applied / Held: exclusion clause insufficiently clear to include DEF hazard / Whether rental company had duty to warn customers of DEF / Held: duty exists / Consumer was therefore insured for damage that occurred and only liable for sum of $1,000.  

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2007 / Misrepresentation / Applicant booked one night’s accommodation at property owned by Respondent / Cost of accommodation was $13,50.00 plus a cleaning fee / Applicant claimed misrepresentation made about facilities offered / Advertised spa pool not working and BBQ dirty / Applicant claimed $400 as compensation / Whether there was misrepresentation / If so, whether the misrepresentation was a significant factor which induced the Applicant to book the accommodation / Whether the Applicant was entitled to all or any of $400 claimed / Held: advertised facilities were not functional / Onus on property owner to ensure accommodation was clean and of standard expected including ensuring facilities worked / Mispresentation established / Evidence established that Applicant relied on the description of the facilities in making her decision to book the property / Applicant sought compensation not full refund / Respondent to pay $400 to Applicant / Cl…

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Reasonable care and skill / Breach / Second respondent contracted with Applicant to repair hot water cylinder / Applicant claims payment on account / Respondents claim the cylinder lost heat three months after repairs after Applicant had attended property regarding payment / Respondents discovered issue with cylinder due to missing fuse / Whether it is more likely than not the Applicant removed the fuse; if so, how much is payable for work done / Held: Applicant most likely took out fuse / Held: Applicant not able to recover own charges but fees for work of third-party just and practicable to be paid / Claim allowed / Respondents ordered to pay $189.03 to Applicant

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants bought a kitset garage / Respondent had undertaken garage installation / Various issues arose from installation / Applicants did not wish to pay final $5,000 to Respondent / Respondent pursued payment / Applicants claimed $30,000 in damages / Respondent counterclaimed for final account plus additional costs amounting to $10,000 / Both parties have claimed for compensation for any sum payable / Held: garage was consented to despite errors in the installation / Compensation payable by Respondent was offset by amount still owed by Applicants / Neither party owed the other any sum / Claim and counterclaim granted.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicants booked Respondent as photographer for their wedding / Applicant's wedding postponed because of COVID / Respondent refused to be vaccinated and suggested to proceed as planned or his contract to be either transferred to a vaccinated photographer or be cancelled with a 50% refund of paid amount / Respondent suggested to record the event using Google satellites / Applicants claim for full refund on the basis that proposed service is not reasonably fit for purpose under the CGA / Held: Applicants entitled to cancel contract as services provided by Respondent not fit for purpose / Applicant can obtain any loss or damage resulting from failure that was reasonably foreseeable / Respondent ordered to pay Applicants $599.00 on or before 8 March 2022 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant and her partner entered into contracts with Respondent to provide a variety of wedding services /  Contracts related to planning and styling of the wedding, floral styling and venue hire / Applicant and her partner live in Australia / Due to travel restrictions relating to Covid-19 the parties agreed to postpone the wedding  / Later the Applicant and her partner advised they wished to cancel their booking / Correspondence ensued between the parties regarding refunds / Applicant received a partial refund from Respondent / Applicant sought an order for $3,312.70, the deposit amount for floral and venue hire contracts / Whether the contract was frustrated / If yes, whether the Applicant was entitled to a refund of $3,312,70 / If not, whether the Respondent was entitled to retain deposits paid / Held: contract was not frustrated / Contract was cancelled because Applicant and her partner made a decision not to take the risk of cont…

Tort / Detinue / Applicant booked Polaris Ranger into Respondents’ workshop / Respondent refused to return the ranger until Applicant paid outstanding invoice for a different Polaris / The vehicle was returned, after Applicant filed an initial Disputes Tribunal claim / Applicant seeks damages to cover the cost of hiring an alternative vehicle while Polaris was detained / Held: It was unlawful for Respondent to withhold the Polaris / The first and third Respondent must pay the Applicant $1,100.00 for hiring costs / The claim against the second respondent is dismissed. Claim: partially upheld.