Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Misrepresentation / Applicant purchased property from Respondents  / Applicant claims $30,000 for losses suffered due to problems with the property’s rangehood, gas regulator, and maintenance of windows and roof / Respondents deny any liability for loss suffered / Held: breach of clause 7.2 of the sale and purchase agreement that chattels delivered in reasonable working order / Rangehood was not in reasonable working order at settlement / Failure due to ongoing issue of build-up of grease in venting / Held: no breach of sale and purchase agreement clause 7.2 regarding the gas regulator / Regulator failed after settlement / Held: Applicant unable to prove misrepresentation regarding the state of the maintenance of the house including windows / Evidence supplied at time of sale indicates property had been maintained / Held: Applicant unable to prove misrepresentation regarding the state of the roof / Respondents did not make unqualified s…

Civil procedure / ss 14 and 15 of the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 / Applicants contracted with Respondent for harvesting of two blocks of trees / Applicants lodged claim against Respondent in the Disputes Tribunal for loss of value in trees left to deteriorate on site / Applicants lodged second claim against Respondent in the Dispute Tribunal in relation to same contract for refund for construction of road / Held: s 15 applies where a cause of action is divided “for the purpose” of bringing a claim within the Dispute Tribunal’s jurisdiction / prior and current proceedings flow from the same set of circumstances and as a result encompass the same cause of action / Trustees divided cause of action into 2 or more claims in contravention of s 15 / claim struck out.

Licences / Licence to Occupy / Applicants had a Licence to Occupy bach on Respondents land / Applicants wanted to sell Licence to third party / Respondents approved on basis that they took the profit on the sale / Applicants claim return of $20,000 less $50 legal costs / Held: no express provision in Licence requiring Applicants to pay Respondents any part of the sum they receive / Outcome: Claim allowed / Respondent to pay Applicant $19,950 in three annual payments of $5,000 and one of $4,950.

Contract / Consumer protection / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicants engaged Respondent to paint their house, and made payments totalling $6,900.00 / Respondent only completed part of the work / Applicants claim Respondent misrepresented himself and breached the contract by not completing the work / Applicants claim $6,900.00, plus filing costs of $90.00 / Held: Respondent made a misleading representation by using the trademarked term ‘Master Painter’ on his business card / Respondent’s refusal to complete the work amounted to a repudiation of the contract / Applicants were entitled to cancel the contract (s 36 CCLA) and claim relief (s 43 CCLA) / Benefit Applicants received from the part performance of the contract totalled $4,807.07 / Claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay $2,092.93.

Negligence / Respondent collided with power pole owned by Applicant, forcing its replacement / Applicant sought compensation of $17,658.17 / Held: loss described by Applicant is reasonable in the circumstances / Applicant awarded its damages claim in full / claim allowed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Private sale of a second-hand car / After purchasing the vehicle the Applicant discovered the gear box needed replacing / Applicant claimed the Respondent made misrepresentations about the condition of the car / Applicant also claimed the Respondent made a mispresentation that the car ran well / Whether there was a misrepresentation by the Respondent that induced the Applicant into purchasing the car / If so, what remedy was appropriate / Held: Applicant was unable to show on the balance of probabilities that there were misrepresentations regarding the condition of the vehicle / Statement that the car ran well was a misrepresentation supported by evidence / The misrepresentation induced the Applicant into the contract and to buying the vehicle / Applicant purchased a second-hand vehicle and would have anticipated some ongoing service and maintenance /  $1,000.00 considered to represent a fair contribution to repairs by the Respondent / …

Contract / Applicants entered share milking contract with Respondents as trustees of ABC trust / Respondents terminated contract / Final milk contract payment made to trustees in place of Applicants / Applicants claimed $16,456.38 plus GST and interest in relation to final milk contract payment and filing fee / Held: contract stipulates that on termination Applicants receive Contract Payment for any unpaid milk contract payment without deduction or withholding any amount and Trustees have no right to set off in relation to payment / Applicants entitled to Contractor Payment which Respondents withheld / Trustees acted in breach of contract by not paying final Contractor Payment to the Applicants / Trustees not entitled to deduct costs claimed from the final Contractor Payment / Claim allowed / Respondents ordered to pay $17,336.99 to the Applicants

Consumer rights / Consumer Guarantees Act 1983 / Respondent purchased digital surveillance system from Applicant / Respondent has not paid for system / System sends false alerts / Intruder alerts unable to be turned on and off when camera system is turned on and off / Applicant claims payment for system / Respondent counterclaims seeking declaration that he is not liable and is entitled to reject system / Held: system not sufficiently free from defects / Respondent made functionality he sought clear and system not reasonably fit for this purpose / Applicant went to considerable lengths to rectify system / Respondent made clear he wanted to cancel arrangement in February 2020, purchase has been cancelled since then / Respondent has received little marginal benefit from use of system since cancellation / Respondent filed claim in timely manner / Little or no depreciation in hard drive from delay / Outcome: Respondent to keep cameras purchased with system to mitigate his loss / Respondent…

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant had house built by Respondent / Applicant ordered grey bricks / Respondent provided brown bricks and said they would look different when laid / Applicant raised issue again halfway through / Respondent laid entire wall / Applicant claims Respondent misrepresented colour blend of bricks / Applicant claims Respondent failed to provide reasonable care and skill / Applicant claims $27,668.00 / Held: Respondent misrepresented colour blend of bricks / Held: Respondent failed to provide reasonable care and skill / Applicant could have stopped brick laying earlier / Respondent provided partial remedy by painting weatherboards of house to fit colour scheme / claim allowed, Respondent to pay Applicant $3,000.00.

Contract / Education and Training Act 2020 / Applicant signed up for course and subsequently cancelled / Applicant claimed that Respondent failed to notify him that no refund could be given if a cancellation was within 14 days of course commencement / s 354 and 357 Education and Training Act 2020 / Respondent unaware of its obligation under the Act / No evidence that cancellation caused any loss to Respondent / Held: Applicant entitled to full refund of $2,200

Contract / Breach of contract / Applicant arranged to sell all of its paintings  through the Respondent / Applicants arranged for unsold paintings to be uplifted from Respondent’s premises to a gallery / Applicants claimed one of the paintings went missing / Applicants claimed for original price of the painting / Whether the painting was delivered to the Respondent / Whether there was a contract that the painting would be insured by the Respondent on its premises / Whether the Respondent has breached its responsibility as a bailee to take reasonable care of the painting / Whether Applicants were entitled to compensation for the painting / Held: applicants did not prove it was more likely than not that the painting was delivered to the Respondent / Honest belief something was done not the same thing as whether it was actually done / Claim dismissed

Contract / Quasi-contract / Applicant acted for Respondent seeking improved compensation from EQC for damage to Respondent’s property / Respondent obtained further compensation of $120,000 from EQC / Applicant claimed $3,200 as legal costs / Applicant claimed it was implied term of contract with Respondent that Respondent would pay legal costs / Held: Legal costs not implied term of contract between parties / Applicant does not have a contractual right to the $3,200 claimed based on express statements to Respondent that litigation costs would be met by Applicant / Tribunal examined whether it would be unjust for Respondent to retain benefit of compensation at Respondent’s expense / Applicant claimed legal costs were included in compensation but were unable to provide express explanation or breakdown of compensation from EQC showing costs included in compensation /  Held: Applicant not entitled to amount sought in absence of express explanation or breakdown from EQC regarding costs / Cl…