Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA) / Applicant purchased fridge/freezer from Respondent / Fridge was described as briefly used and would suit a new buyer / Fridge’s motor turned on but would not go cold / Technician assessed fridge and discovered malfunction / Respondent unwilling to provide remedy / Applicant claimed refund of $1966.75 / Held: Respondent had not misrepresented fridge / CCLA states if a contractual mistake is made remedy is available to purchaser / Contractual mistake was made and remedy available to Applicant / Claim allowed / Respondent to pay Applicant $1,371.75.
You can search by selecting a jurisdiction, a keyword (for example a name) or browse by year. Identifying details have been removed.
Some decisions in this section have had minor editorial changes applied, that have no effect on the outcome.
2256 items matching your search terms
-
CL v TD [2024] NZDT 404 (15 May 2024) [PDF, 190 KB] -
P Ltd v V Ltd [2024] NZDT 377 (15 May 2024) [PDF, 178 KB] Contract / Respondent engaged Applicant for drainage inspection work at a client’s property / Applicant had done several jobs for Respondent previously / Applicant's usual practice was that if inspection identified damage, Applicant would submit claim to insurer / Applicant would then be engaged to do repair work, and be paid for both the inspection and the repair by insurer / If no damage was found, Applicant ordinarily did not charge Respondent, accepting cost of inspection itself / In this case, Applicant carried out inspection and identified repair needs / Respondent’s client then engaged another company to do repairs / Applicant claimed $1090.20 from Respondent for the inspection / Held: Respondent was not bound to give all or any repair work to Applicant / Respondent's client was entitled to engage another company for repairs / This did not constitute any breach of contract by Respondent / Respondent had reasonable belief, engendered by Applicant, that Applicant did not expect pa…
-
TT v JN [2024] NZDT 344 (15 May 2024) [PDF, 95 KB] Negligence / Applicant was driving along rural road and came across cows on the road / Applicant pulled her vehicle towards middle of road and employed hazard lights to warn traffic coming from opposite direction to avoid hitting the cows / Respondent was driving from opposite direction and did not see Applicant’s vehicle, and collision occurred / Applicant and insurer claimed $796.65 for repairs / Held: witness evidence indicated that the Respondent would have had restricted visibility before collision occurred / Respondent did not breach his duty of care to Applicant / Respondent could not reasonably have been expected to see Applicant’s car with sufficient time to stop his vehicle before collision / Claim dismissed.
-
DD v T Ltd [2024] NZDT 318 (15 May 2024) [PDF, 124 KB] Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant joined Respondent's membership scheme and paid $500 towards her account / Applicant wished to refund balance of credit account / Request refused by Respondent on the basis there was no refund policy / Applicant claimed credit balance and tribunal fee / Held: Respondent not legally obliged to refund credit balance/ Applicant can use credit balance and make purchases in Respondent's shop / Applicant not entitled to refund of tribunal fee / Claim dismissed.
-
D Ltd v KG [2024] NZDT 323 (15 May 2024) [PDF, 94 KB] Contract / Respondent contracted Applicant to repair leaks in his boat / Additional repairs were made by Applicant / Respondent refused to pay for additional repairs claiming that he did not authorise extra work / Applicant claimed for unpaid fees / Held: Applicant advised Respondent that additional repairs would be carried out at the Respondent's cost / Invoiced amount reasonable / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $6,412.59 / Claim allowed.
-
DB & NB v R Ltd & D Ltd [2024] NZDT 439 (14 May 2024) [PDF, 220 KB] Contract / Applicants booked international flights with Second Respondent airline / First leg of return journey was with First Respondent airline / Applicants were charged excess baggage fee on return flights in line with Second Respondent’s rates / Applicants claimed baggage rules were not part of contract for carriage, or that contract relating to baggage was amended during in-person visit to airport where First Respondent allegedly told them lower excess baggage fee / Applicants claimed difference between quoted rate and rate paid for excess baggage / Totalled $1,625.00 excess exchange fee, non-economic losses for wasted vacation time, aggravation, false imprisonment and extortion, and $20,000.00 exemplary damages / Held: contract between Applicants and Second Respondent included baggage conditions, which Applicants could have ascertained by way of links provided during booking process / Phone call evidence between Applicants and Second Respondent left no doubt that Applicants were …
-
OD v Q Ltd [2024] NZDT 422 (14 May 2024) [PDF, 112 KB] Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a laptop from Respondent / Advertisement stated laptop had two SSD slots, which was important to Applicant / Applicant checked with Respondent’s staff before purchasing, who confirmed laptop had two SSD slots / Applicant later discovered one SSD slot could not be used without a separate bracket / Applicant advised Respondent he was rejecting laptop as it was not fit for the purpose he had advised he was buying it for / Applicant claimed $2,000.00 refund / Held: Applicant made it known to Respondent that it was important to him the laptop had two SSD slots / Laptop was not fit for purpose Applicant had made known to Respondent, because it required bracket in order for second SSD slot to be useable / Bracket was not supplied with laptop or mentioned at time of sale / Applicant entitled to reject goods and receive a full refund / Respondent ordered to pay $2,000.00 / Claim allowed.
-
FC v QK [2024] NZDT 415 (14 May 2024) [PDF, 208 KB] Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant contracted Respondent to install ventilation system at her house / Applicant's house covered in condensation and her power bills were higher than usual / Applicant informed ventilation system installed wrongly / Applicant claimed full refund / Held: faulty controller prevented ventilation system from working properly / System installed by Respondent not fit for purpose / Respondent unable to remedy within reasonable time / Applicant entitled to cancel contract / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2,032.57 / Claim allowed.
-
QU v TW [2024] NZDT 311 (14 May 2024) [PDF, 90 KB] Negligence / Respondent collided into Applicant’s parked car / Applicant’s car had market value of $10,500.00 and was written off / Applicant reached settlement with her insurer receiving payment of $9,900.00, after $600.00 excess deduction / Applicant initially claimed $3,920.73, $600.00 excess and balance owed to her finance company, but dropped excess claim due to insurance payment / Held: Respondent negligently caused damage to Applicant’s car / Applicant had been compensated for full market value of the car / Applicant not entitled to additional compensation for finance payments on original purchase / Payments would have been required to pay regardless of collision and not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of collision / Claim dismissed.
-
EQ v FI Ltd [2024] NZDT 394 (13 May 2024) [PDF, 138 KB] Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased second-hand car from Respondent for $54,000 / Car received with only one set of keys / Applicant claimed for value of second set of keys / On basis that all cars assumed to have two sets of keys and Respondent had obligation to tell him if it had only one set / Applicant claimed he would not have purchased car if he had known it only had one set / Held: no express or implied term of contract that two sets of keys would be provided / As purchaser of second-hand vehicle, Applicant needed to check whether car came with all accessories that were important to him / Respondent’s silence regarding number of sets of keys did not amount to misrepresentation / That it would be more convenient for Applicant to have a second set of keys did not mean car was not of acceptable quality / Claim dismissed.
-
LW v N Ltd [2024] NZDT 352 (13 May 2024) [PDF, 133 KB] Consumer law / Quasi-contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant, a foreign national, engaged Respondent, a law firm, for advice on purchasing property in New Zealand / Respondent advised regarding rules and processes for such purchases / Applicant paid $5,000.00 to Respondent for services / Applicant requested Respondent apply for “exception” to the rules / Respondent advised that was not possible and refunded Applicant $4,057.00, retaining $943.00 for time already spent on matter / Applicant claimed refund of $943.00, claiming he hired Respondent for specific purpose and Respondent had not done that / Held: $943.00 fee was reasonable price for service provided by Respondent / Claim dismissed.
-
BB v IU [2024] NZDT 346 (13 May 2024) [PDF, 126 KB] Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Respondent advertised a commercial dishwasher for sale online for $2,000.00 / Applicant offered $1,300.00 and Respondent accepted price / Applicant paid in instalments / Applicant then came to collect dishwasher, but refused to take it as allegedly it was in poor condition and too big / Applicant claimed $1,300.00 / Held: contract for sale and purchase of dishwasher was formed when Respondent accepted offer of $1,300 / No evidence that advertisement was incorrect / Later discussion between parties about condition and size of dishwasher occurred after contract had been formed / No evidence of any misrepresentation before contract was entered into / Claim dismissed.
-
TD v S Ltd [2024] NZDT 308 (13 May 2024) [PDF, 195 KB] Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA) / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Building Act 2004 / Applicant purchased two houses from Respondent, a supplier and installer of second-hand houses / One house was damaged during move when its roof made contact with a tree / Applicant claimed $8,735.00 against Respondent / Respondent disputed liability, claiming Applicant failed to cut tree as requested by Respondent to allow access for Respondent’s truck / Held: contract between parties did not specify what kind of contract for carriage was agreed, therefore by default it was carriage “at limited carrier’s risk” / CCLA imposed liability on Respondent because Respondent was carrier and house was carrier’s responsibility / Respondent therefore liable for damage caused to house / CCLA limited liability to $2000.00 / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $2000.00 / Claim allowed in part.
-
ET & JT v AQ [2024] NZDT 295 (13 May 2024) [PDF, 128 KB] Negligence / Respondent’s vehicle struck Applicant’s vehicle while attempting to change lanes / Respondent claimed Applicant’s vehicle suddenly stopped when he was changing lanes, causing him to collide into it / Applicant disputed Respondent's account and said she was still travelling ahead when collision occurred / Applicant and insurer claimed $20,100.46 for cost of repairs / Held: Respondent was not driving at a safe distance from Applicant’s car / Respondent was negligent whether or not the Applicant braked suddenly / Respondent liable for reasonable costs for the damage to Applicant’s car / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $20,100.46 / Claim allowed.
-
WU v QW [2024] NZDT 275 (13 May 2024) [PDF, 99 KB] Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased a steer from Respondent for $600.00 / Steer turned out to be a rig which put her cows at risk of getting pregnant / Applicant claimed $2393.15 for vet costs associated with possible pregnant cows, vet bill for desexing the rig (who died during surgery) and costs to bury the rig / Held: Respondent misrepresented the animal to the Applicant inducing her into buying it / Fair and reasonable amount for vet related costs was $902.25 / Claim for burying costs was dismissed as the Applicant had other options of destroying the beast / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $902.25 / Claim granted in part.
-
TUW & TJW v TX & HL [2024] NZDT 358 (10 May 2024) [PDF, 186 KB] Contract / Property / Applicants purchased a home from Respondents / Both parties confirmed that the Agreement for Sale and Purchase included the spa pool as a chattel with warranty that it be in working order at time of sale / Parties agreed that the list of chattels did not include a loose gate / Spa pool was empty at settlement date / Spa pool later found to have significant leaks / Applicants claimed spa pool was not in working order at settlement date and sought $2,129.00 compensation for repair / Applicants also claimed for return of the gate / Held: insufficient evidence that the spa was not working on settlement date / Likely spa developed a leak after settlement date / By not filling pool until five weeks after settlement date, Applicants compromised ability to prove it leaked at settlement date / No agreement between the parties regarding the gate / No contract entered into between the parties regarding the gate / Claim dismissed.
-
TX v UQ Ltd [2024] NZDT 355 (10 May 2024) [PDF, 163 KB] Negligence / Applicant claimed his car was damaged by a runaway trolley in a supermarket carpark run by the Respondent / Applicant claimed $711.25 for repair costs and $45 filing fee / Held: insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent was negligent / Likely another customer left the trolley in an insecure position / Unreasonable to expect a supermarket to employ enough staff to immediately move every wrongly placed trolley / Claim dismissed.
-
TG v E Ltd [2024] NZDT 289 (10 May 2024) [PDF, 102 KB] Contract / Parties entered into contract for substantial renovations to Applicant’s house / Applicant claimed there was a blow out as a result of Respondent not being financially transparent / Applicant refused to paid final invoices / Applicant sought an declaration that the final invoices did not need to be paid / Respondent claimed $30,000 in unpaid work / Held: contract was estimate of costs and not fixed price / Not sufficiently proven that increased cost was any fault of Respondent / Respondent entitled for final invoices to be paid / Applicant ordered to pay Respondent $30,000 / Claim dismissed and counter-claim allowed.
-
NC v X Ltd [2024] NZDT 274 (10 May 2024) [PDF, 205 KB] Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased tablets online from Respondent in 2023 / After she had taken most of the tablets, Applicant discovered tablets had an expiry date from 2022 / Applicant contacted Respondent about her concerns / Applicant remained concerned that the expired tablets may have had a detrimental effect on her health, and that she may have been sold expired products in the past / Applicant sought $12000 in compensation, based on likely profits made by the Respondent on Applicant’s past orders / Held: tablets were not of acceptable quality as they had expired / No evidence provided to support loss claimed by Applicant / Amount of compensation claimed not justified / Respondent offered Applicant a $100 gift voucher / Voucher offer was reasonable / Respondent ordered to send Applicant $100 gift voucher / Claim allowed in part.
-
BL v CD (NZ) Ltd [2024] NZDT 282 (9 May 2024) [PDF, 176 KB] Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant wanted to book a serviced apartment for a family trip overseas / Applicant went through process of booking an apartment online, paid NZ$17,000.00 / Applicant later discovered the apartment did not exist and he had been defrauded / Applicant claimed compensation from Respondent’s accommodation booking site company / Applicant considered Respondent was responsible for the misleading advertisement that appeared on the website that he used / Held: evidence established that Applicant entered what appeared to be a genuine booking process, lost his money because the apartment he paid for didn’t exist / Respondent not liable to compensate Applicant for the money he lost / Respondent was a registered New Zealand company and not the company operating the website Applicant used to make booking / Nothing to indicate Respondent was engaged in any misleading or deceptive conduct such as to cause Applicant’s loss / Claim dismissed.
-
UC & SM v BC [2024] NZDT 445 (9 May 2024) [PDF, 207 KB] Contract / Consumer Law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants booked international travel with Respondent airline / One flight in the journey was delayed for 17 hours and 40 minutes due to a hydraulic leak / Applicants claimed $7,624.38 for various costs, including for lost wages due to extra delay in transit, cost of traveling back to the destination to recoup one day’s missed holiday, time spent dealing with Respondent to seek compensation, and costs associated with Tribunal hearing / Respondent had reimbursed Applicants for some costs associated with delayed flight, including reimbursing cost of the flights themselves despite not being legally required to do so, less an outstanding $216.00 that it had been unable to credit to a credit card / Held: Applicants’ claimed losses were not reasonably foreseeable, therefore Applicants not entitled to compensation / Tribunal costs unable to be awarded in circumstances / Applicants to provide bank account details to Respondent for outst…
-
N Ltd v R Ltd & TQ [2024] NZDT 418 (9 May 2024) [PDF, 185 KB] Contract / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Second Respondent removed sink at dwelling to avoid compliance requirement by District Council / Second Respondent reinstated sink and sold property to Applicant / Applicant claimed $30,000 on the basis that Respondent's conduct was misleading and deceptive / Held: First Respondent in breach of warranties and undertakings in the Agreement / Liability extend to Second Respondent personally / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $15,000 / Respondent liable to pay Development Contribution but not surveyor and planner fees and the Applicant's legal fees / Claim allowed in part.
-
IQ v KM & MR [2024] NZDT 291 (9 May 2024) [PDF, 227 KB] Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant rented a room in Respondents’ house / Respondents entered Applicant’s bedroom several times when she was not there / When Applicant’s security camera notified her this happened in the middle of night she decided to move out without giving notice / Applicant sought $1,999.00 for bond, rent, accommodation costs after moving out and compensation for emotional distress / Respondents counterclaimed for damage to a door, utility costs and extra charges for Applicant’s partner staying overnight / Held: Applicant entitled to cancel contract without notice / Respondents breached Applicant’s right to quiet enjoyment of her room multiple times / Breach sufficiently serious for Applicant to cancel contract immediately / Applicant entitled to bond refund and advance rent payment, total of $1,362.88 / Respondents not liable for any other amount / Applicant liable to Respondents for $35.71 for her partner staying overnight, as earlier agreed…
-
N Ltd v C Ltd [2024] NZDT 307 (9 May 2024) [PDF, 92 KB] Contract / Overpayment / Applicant claimed against Respondent for two payments Applicant made to Respondent in error, totalling $18,205.79 / Respondent accepted payments had been made, but was not sure if money claimed related to Respondent's previous work / Held: more likely that the payments were made in error / Overpayments had been scrutinised by Applicant’s accounts department / Applicant had been trying to receive refund for a year and Respondent had earlier accepted it had been paid in error / If Respondent had a genuine view the payments were for work done it would have been able to furnish proof / Respondent had retained funds that did not belong to it, therefore must return those funds / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $18,205.79 / Claim allowed.
-
BP & EP v H Ltd [2024] NZDT 290 (9 May 2024) [PDF, 92 KB] Contract / Applicants engaged the Respondent to build their home / After build was completed the total build price was more than the Applicants expected / Applicants considered they had been overcharged 10% extra for labour / Applicants sought refund of $30,000 / Held: no ambiguity in contract clauses / Respondent entitled to charge labour rates plus margin of 10% / Respondent entitled to proceed with building on the basis that terms of the contract had been agreed upon / Claim dismissed.