Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Misrepresentation / Applicant purchased car from Respondent / Car was advertised as in “excellent condition” with no mechanical or electrical issues / After purchase Applicant found several mechanical issues with car and contacted Respondent to get money back / Respondent refused and no resolution was reached / Applicant claims $4,100.00 for repair of car / Held: statement car was in excellent condition was a misrepresentation / Held: Applicant induced to enter contract by misrepresentation / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant sum of $2,000 being the difference in value between a car in excellent condition and a car requiring further repairs

Towing / Respondent towed applicant's car from private parking area / Applicant paid $380 to retrieve car from respondent’s yard / Applicant seeks to recover amount paid as he parked outside business hours / Applicant questioned whether respondent authorised to tow car / Applicant argued $380 was excessive and there were no towing signs / Whether respondent was entitled to tow applicant’s car / If so, was cost justified / Held: parking area was private property subject to the rules of the owners / Instructions of owners permitted respondent to tow in stipulated times / Respondent provided evidence of authority to tow from parking area / Cost charged by applicant in line with other towing costs / Numerous towing signs at parking area / Claim dismissed.

Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Misrepresentation / Applicant purchased car from Respondent that was represented to be in good working condition / Car would not start after being driven 30 minutes day of sale and likely to require engine rebuild / Applicant claims $6,500.00 from Respondent for cost of rebuild or refund of purchase price / Held: Respondent represented car in good working condition, ran well, had rebuilt engine and had work done / Held: Applicant proved on balance Respondent’s representations were incorrect and amounted to misrepresentation under s 35(1)(a) CCLA / Held: Applicant relied on Respondent's representations and was induced to purchase by misrepresentation / Held: fair and reasonable estimate of Applicant’s loss is $3,943.75 / Claim allowed

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant purchased automatic watch from Respondent / Applicant sought refund as unhappy with watch functionality / Respondent refused refund / Applicant claimed watch was not of acceptable quality or fit for communicated purpose ss 6 and 7 CGA / Applicant claimed $899.00 refund / Held: watch not fit for communicated purpose / Respondent did not clearly alert Applicant to characteristics that might make automatic watch unsuited to Applicant’s purposes / Applicant entitled to reject the watch and receive a full refund / Respondent to refund Applicant $899.00 / Claim granted.

Contract / Applicant agreed to purchase puppy from Respondent for $2,600.00 / Applicant paid non-refundable deposit of $500.00 / Parties agreed balance would be payable on pick up of puppy / Later Applicant said he no longer wanted puppy / Applicant requested refund of deposit / Respondent indicated that he would refund deposit if prospective buyer purchased puppy / Later Respondent said he would not refund deposit as prospective buyer backed out / Applicant claimed refund of $500.00 deposit together with filing fee / Was Respondent obliged to refund deposit / Held: predictable that buyer backing out would cause Respondent loss / $500.00 was reasonable pre-estimate of loss / Contractual term that deposit was not refundable enforced / In absence of any evidence the condition of Respondent’s promise was fulfilled / Respondent not obliged to refund deposit / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Applicants and Respondent shared a property boundary / Respondent cut down a tree on the Applicants’ property / Respondent said the tree was overgrown and essentially a weed / Applicants claimed loss of tree resulted in loss of privacy and affected their enjoyable of the property / Applicants claimed $3,000.00 to compensate for their loss and to provide for replanting of a replacement tree / Whose property was the tree on / If the tree was on the Applicant’s property, did the Respondent cause loss by cutting it down /  Held: tree was on Applicants’ property / Respondent caused loss to Applicants by cutting down the tree / The “self help” remedy chosen by the Respondent was unlawful / Applicants entitled to be compensated /  Respondent ordered to pay the Applicant $1430.59 / Claim granted.

Property / Applicants purchased house from Respondents / Afterwards Applicants discovered oven not in working order / Applicants found circular burn on kitchen bench / Applicants claimed to be compensated for both oven and state of kitchen bench / Was it term of agreement that oven in working order and if so, was it in working order on date of settlement / If not, what loss can Applicants prove they have incurred that they are entitled to be compensated for / Was it term of agreement that bench was undamaged / If so, what loss can Applicants prove they have incurred to fix kitchen bench / Held: parties signed written contract for sale and purchase of house / Clause in contract provides that chattels, including oven, were to be in reasonably working order / Applicants entitled to be reinstated to position they would have been in had oven been in working order / Deduction made for age of oven at date of settlement / Oven should be valued at one third of price of new one, $533.11 / Respon…

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicants purchased package tour from Respondent / Tour cancelled due to COVID19 / Applicants received refund of all money paid except for $4,000 for part of the package / Respondent states the $4,000 is held in future credits but Applicants unable to use credits due COVID19 travel risks, age and health / Applicants claim refund of $4,000 / Held: Respondents entered into direct contract with Applicants on terms specified in booking form and tour brochure / The contract was frustrated / When a contract is frustrated, sums already paid are recoverable / Claim allowed, Respondents must refund the entire balance of $4,000 to Applicants

Property / Fencing Act 1978 / Applicant and Respondent own adjoining properties / Proposal to build fence between properties but disagreement as to location / Held: fence should be erected on boundary line defined by surveying company / Applicant to pay for removal of hedge / Respondent to contribute half quoted cost of fence

Contract / GST / Costs / Respondent engaged Applicant through Barrister to complete a valuation for insurance purposes / Applicant made error in billing Respondent leaving balance owing / Applicant sought payment from Respondent of outstanding amount / Respondent claimed Applicant stated balance owed would be written off / Alternatively Respondent did not have to pay because Respondent was GST exempt / Held: Respondent bound through barrister for all work done by Respondent / Held: Applicant entitled to claim for missed invoice / Held: Respondent not exempt from paying GST / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay $2051.28 to Applicant

Contract / Quasi-contract  / Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 (DTA) / Equitable jurisdiction / Entitlement to relief / Applicant entered into contract with Respondent to purchase a section subject to subdivision / Agreement included a sunset clause / Prior to settlement Applicant cleared area of trees on property / Respondents cancelled contract based on sunset clause / Applicants claimed $4,140 from Respondents in relation to tree removal / Disputes Tribunal had jurisdiction over dispute as it concerned contract not recovery of an interest in land or question of title to land / Held: Applicants not entitled to reimbursement under contract / Agreement between parties did not provide for oral variations or reimbursement for acts taken in reliance of contract / Quasi-contract does not apply, no remedy available to Applicants under this claim / Respondents not unduly enriched by the felling of the trees / Applicants cannot claim relief under an equitable jurisdiction in the Disputes Tribunal / …

Property / Fencing Act 1978 / Parties shared an adjourning boundary / Respondents erected new fence and sought half the costs pursuant to a fencing notice / Applicants did not seek removal of fence / Applicants wanted the fence height reduced and a mirror installed / Whether valid fencing notice issued / Whether the fence should be lowered, or a mirror installed / Held: Notice issued by Respondents was not valid / Notice did not provide a costs estimate or specify the consequences of failure to work / Also notice would lapse if work did not take place within 90 days / Work took place after expiry of notice period / Tribunal has no power to order a mirror installed / Fence height permitted by Council so height reduction request could not be granted / Claims dismissed

Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased a jetski from Respondent / Applicant did not test run jetski prior to purchase / Applicant took jetski out on the water after sale and found it was faulty / Applicant advised fault would have existed at point of sale / Applicant advised fault due to lack of regular servicing / Applicant sought refund of $6,000.00 purchase price / Whether misrepresentation made in sale of jetski / Whether Applicant was entitled to sum claimed / Held: Respondent provided limited representations relating to the condition of the jetski / Respondent disclosed lack of use and servicing of the jetski / No misrepresentation made in the sale / No entitlement for damages for faulty jetski / Claim dismissed