Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

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.

Contract / Applicant loaned respondent money to purchase a saxophone / They differ on terms of loan / Applicant claims respondent is in a position to repay loan / Respondent refused to pay any of the loan / Held: given agreement on loan and respondent’s refusal to begin repayment, applicant entitled to claim entire amount / Respondent’s claim he cannot afford to pay is not a ground on which application can be refused / Outcome: claim allowed, respondent to pay applicant $4,800

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased car from Respondent / Respondent stated vehicle was in mint condition and came with mechanical warranty / After sale, warranty could not be transferred to Applicant, parties agreed Respondent would compensate Applicant $100 / Applicant queried if any major repairs had been carried out, Respondent advised vehicle had coolant issue repaired 10 days prior to sale / Coolant lights came on while Applicant was driving vehicle / Mechanic identified many mechanical issues / Applicant claimed refund of the purchase price of vehicle / Held: Respondent had duty to disclose recent major repairs / Evidence proved car was not in mint condition / Respondent mispresented car’s condition / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $5100 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003 / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased campervan from Respondent / Campervan’s engine blew up some days after purchase / Repairs cost $4304.74 / Applicant subsequently sold the campervan with camping equipment for a higher price / Applicant claimed cost of repairs / Held: Respondent was a motor vehicle trader / Campervan was not of acceptable quality under / Failure was of a substantial character / Respondent misrepresented campervan being mechanically safe and sound / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4304.74 / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant had a solar system installed at his house / Solar inverter broke and need replacing / Installer was in liquidation and new part was provided and installed by Respondent  / Applicant concerned that replacement inverter was a pre-owned part / Applicant sought compensation because replacement part was not the same as the original part / Held: Applicant not entitled to compensation / Applicant did not show anything wrong with replacement inverter / No evidence indicating why original inverter failed / No loss suffered / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Accident Compensation Act 2001 (ACA) / Applicant engaged Respondent for dental services / Respondent gave Applicant five fillings, Applicant paid $1,790 / Applicant had ongoing pain after dental work / Four fillings had been placed over active decay, had to be replaced / Applicant claimed $13,425.00 damages / Held: Respondent’s work in relation to four of the five fillings was not provided with reasonable care and skill and was not fit for purpose / Failure was of substantial nature / Respondent liable to refund Applicant price paid for four of the fillings / Applicant could not claim compensation for pain suffered following treatment, likely personal injury barred by ACA / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,432.00 / Claim allowed in part.

Negligence / Damages / Applicant and Respondent involved in vehicle collision / Applicant braked suddenly for pedestrian / Respondent following too closely and was unable to stop / Damage caused to Applicant’s car / Respondent disputed repair costs and pre-accident value of Applicant’s car / Applicant claimed repair costs / Held: repair costs proven as reasonable losses suffered as a result of collision / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $9,343.84 / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased new scooter from Respondent / Scooter did not have charging range as advertised / Applicant complained but Respondent only replied when Applicant left negative feedback online / Applicant claimed for refund / Held: Respondent failed to comply with obligations to remedy failure when given an opportunity to do so / Applicant entitled to reject goods / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $705 / Applicant ordered to make scooter available for collection by Respondent once payment has been made / Claim allowed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA) / Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) / Applicant purchased townhouses off the plans from Respondent / Applicant said townhouse different from the plans / Cladding used on one wall different than what was shown in promotional brochure / Claim not yet settled / Held: Applicant not entitled to damages under CCLA / Promotional material did not constitute a representation / Agreement for sale and purchase did not mention cladding specifications / Respondent did not breach the FTA / Brochure not sufficient to constitute a representation / Respondent agreed to leave offer of $5000 on the table / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant engaged Respondent to move furniture to her new residence / Some furniture was damaged / Applicant claimed Respondent was responsible for damage when moving her furniture / Applicant claimed $1,237.00 for cost of repairs / Held: evidence indicated that furniture was damaged during transportation / Costs to repair were reasonable / Respondent ordered to pay $1,237.00 / Claim allowed.

Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased washing machine and dryer from the Respondent’s website / Goods were advertised as new-box damaged / Once unboxed, Applicant discovered dents on the outer panels and inner drum of the dryer, sticker on the washing machine stated fixed dent in front panel / Applicant sought a refund for both appliances on the basis they were misrepresented / Respondent refused to partake in the hearing / Held: the appliances sold to the Applicant were new and not misrepresented / However, the dryer was not acceptable in appearance and finish and free from minor defects as the internal drum was dented / Applicant entitled to reject dryer and obtain a full refund including delivery costs / Respondent must pay Applicant $1,948 / Claim allowed in part.

Tort / Negligence / Tree branch fell on Applicant's driveway from a tree on Respondent's property / Respondent did not agree to pay arborist as he could have removed it himself / Applicant claimed cost of removing large tree branch / Held: Respondent is responsible for fallen branch and must compensate Applicant / Not reasonable for Respondent to expect Applicant to wait for him to remove tree branch / Respondent aware tree is diseased / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $759 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Construction / Applicant contracted by Respondent to build house / Measurements on plans did not match those on site / Project went overbudget / Applicant claimed compensation for additional cost incurred providing remedy / Held: Respondent could be liable for costs incurred to vary contract, provided builder complied with his obligations under the contract / Applicant breached their obligations as they failed to ensure the site had been accurately set out before commencing building / Respondent not liable to pay remedial works / Claim dismissed.