Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant and his partner booked Respondent’s venue for their wedding / Contracted price was $5,850 / Applicant paid $600 deposit / Respondent advised Applicant month before wedding date that the venue was no longer available / Applicant and partner had to find an alternative venue at short notice/ Applicant claimed compensation of $3,751.00 from Respondent, cost of alternative venue / Held: Respondent repudiated contract / Respondent breach contractual term to provide premises / Applicant entitled to cancel contract and go elsewhere / Applicant entitled to compensation because of cost, time and inconvenience of changing venues / Applicant’s claim not allowed in full as it would be unjust for him to pay nothing for wedding venue and associated costs / Applicant entitled to 50 percent of costs claim / Respondent ordered to pay $1,875.00 to Applicant/ Claim granted in part.

Procedure / Rehearing application / Applicant’s bundle of documents not filed by hearing time / Documents contained considerable detail not known to Referee at hearing / Applicant sought a rehearing based on new information / Held: further hearing required to make decision based on new information / Hearing adjourned.

Contract / Applicant took out $1.1 million loan with Respondent secured over property / Property damaged by landslip and sold / Loan became unsecured / Parties entered contract for repayment with no interest to be reviewed every 3 months / All payments made on time but Respondent credited some payments to wrong account and referred loan to credit agency / Further contract entered that balance be paid off by lump sum with remainder due to be written off / Applicant claimed Respondent’s actions breached contractual and other obligations / Applicant claimed $43,717.00 compensation for loss / Held: Respondent did not significantly breach any obligations to Applicant / Respondent could have provided better service but admitted highlighted errors / Repayment terms could be described as lenient rather than aggressive / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant ordered three items from the Internet to be delivered by Respondent / Items did not arrive on time / Applicant claims compensation from Respondent for failing to deliver goods within reasonable time / Held: Respondent not entitled to pay compensation to Applicant / Applicant did not have a contract for delivery services with Respondent / Claim dismissed.

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased used car from Respondent / Car broke down / Applicant claims $3,000 cost of repairs / Held: Applicant could not prove car was not of acceptable quality at time of purchase / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicants purchased house from Respondents and were not informed of any defects / Applicants found several problems which included dampness, sewage overflow, bathroom plumbing issues and leaks in garage roof and lounge window / Applicants claim they were misled into buying the house and are now seeking compensation for repairs / Held: Respondents did not make any misrepresentation about the house / Applicants not entitled to compensation / claim dismissed.  

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased car from Respondents / Applicant started having issues with car / Applicant seeks cancellation of contract, payment of full refund and associated costs, and for Respondent to uplift car / Held: car did not meet the guarantee of acceptable quality / Respondent had been given opportunity to remedy a number of times / Applicant allowed to reject car and obtain full refund / Claim allowed, Respondent to pay $11,911 to Applicant and uplift car.

Contract / Building Act 2004 / Consumers Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant entered agreement to purchase house under construction from Respondent / Applicant discovered issues with building work / Applicant claimed $30,000 for remedial works / Held: Respondent failed to provide building work with reasonable care and skill / Respondent breached implied warranties in the Building Act and implied guarantees in the Consumer Guarantees Act / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $30,000 / Claim allowed.

Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased a wedding archway for $400 from Respondent in a private sale online / Archway snapped during attempted assembly / Applicant sought refund for misrepresentation / Held: no misrepresentation established / Maxim “buyer beware” still largely applies to private sales / By purchasing the archway privately without a proper inspection, the Applicant took the risk that it might not be of good quality or durability / Claim dismissed.  

Sale of goods / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA) / Applicant purchased Utility Terrain Vehicle (UTV) from Respondent for $32,487.50 / Applicant found various faults with UTV / Respondent attempted to repair issues but some faults remain / Applicant claimed $29,239 refund including 10% depreciation and wished to return UTV to Respondent / Held: UTV was not of merchantable quality / UTV was not fit for purpose / CCLA does not allow Tribunal to order Applicant to return UTV to Respondent / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $26,000 / UTV remains property of Applicant to dispose of as he chooses / Claim partially allowed.

Sale of Goods / Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased tiny house on trailer from Respondent / Piece of cladding fell off en-route to Applicant / Applicant claims cost of repair $9,775 minus cost of installing gutter and downpipes / Respondent counterclaim cost of installing water tank and toilet $4,800 / Held: no evidence that cladding had to be replaced was anything other than minor amount described by Respondent / Applicant not liable to pay for installation of water tank and toilet as they were not express terms of contract / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $342 / claim partially allowed.

Contract / Applicant and Respondent met online / Applicant agreed to collect a boat and trailer for Respondent from the port and deliver it to another city / Applicant was expected to pick up boat from port on 31 August / Applicant had vehicle trouble enroute and stopped to fix it causing delay / Respondent claims tyres on trailer were badly worn on delivery as a result of the Applicant’s driving and Applicant breached the contract by not picking up the boat on time / Applicant claims $1300 from Respondent for the cost of delivery / Held: there was no proof the tyres were damaged as a result of applicants driving / The applicant did all he could to ensure he collected the Respondent’s boat as soon as possible / Not a term of contract that boat had to be picked from port on 31 August / Respondent must pay Applicant $1300 for delivery / Claim granted.

Contract / Respondent successful bidder of Applicant's property / Property flooded and Respondent requested contract to be cancelled / Applicant claimed expenses incurred that exceeded amount of deposit / Held: Respondent not entitled to cancel contract as breach of contract not established / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $10,479.24 / Claim allowed.