Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent provided estimate to complete car restoration / Dispute over estimate being exceeded / Respondent seeking further payment before releasing the car / Estimate provided rather than a quote / Estimate exceeded by $9,409.00 / Held: Respondent had breached its contractual and statutory obligations / Additional cost 50% above original estimate / Amounts to a misrepresentation / Applicant's legal costs recoverable / Applicant not liable to pay interest or storage costs / Applicant liable to pay $1,856.19 to have car returned

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant brought shed/cabin from Respondent / If cabin is weathertight and if there was mould in the interior / Applicant claims a refund for cabin and consequential losses, including third party installation costs and damage to belongings / Applicant also claims for amount spent on wiring the cabin / Held: the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 applies / Cabin did not correspond with description provided by Respondent / Fact that cabin was not weather proof and water tight is a failure of substantial character / Applicant entitled to reject cabin, obtain full refund and damages for reasonably foreseeable further losses / Portion of cost spent on wiring allowed / Claim allowed

Contract / Respondent hired van from applicant / Van broke down during respondent’s use / Van’s clutch plate was burnt out / Applicants claim for cost of clutch replacement / Respondent claims the refund of his bond / Held: respondent drove vehicle in manner that caused premature failure of the clutch / Respondent covered by indemnity against damage provided by the contract / Respondent not liable for clutch damage under terms of the contract with applicant / Respondent not liable to pay for replacement clutch / Respondent entitled to bond refund / Claim dismissed

Contract / Applicant entered contract to purchase puppy from Respondent / Parties agreed Applicant could be refunded if puppy did not meet preferences / After puppies born Applicant advised none met preferences and asked for refund of deposit / Respondent refused refund / Applicant claims refund of deposit plus costs / Held: contract allowed Applicant to back out of purchase and receive refund if not happy with puppy on offer for personal reasons as long as done in good faith / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay $585.00 to Applicant / Applicant cannot recover costs or Tribunal filing fee per s 43 of the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988.

Contract / Applicant asked respondent for help accessing cheap flights with specific airline / Applicant not happy with tickets as they were not with specific airline, had multiple stops and some tickets were invalid / Applicant’s family purchased new tickets / Applicant claims for amount paid for the unused tickets / Held: respondent not acting ‘in trade’ as is not in the business of making travel arrangements or providing travel agency services / No other cause of action for legal claim against respondent / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Land Use Agreement / Fee dispute / Respondent used transmitting equipment installed on land owned by Applicant / Parties entered into land use agreement in 2018 that provided Applicant payment for installation / Dispute over sum owed to Applicant / Respondent stopped using site / Applicant claims for usage of land dating back to 2010 / Respondent disputes sum owed on basis it should only pay for 2017 and 2018 / Held: Respondent owes Applicant $1368.50 under the agreement for 2017 and 2018 / Fee amount based on email offer from company / Held: agreement applies to years 2010-2016 / Agreement states it applies from 2010 onwards / Price to be applied for 2010-2016 is $476.00 based on one user fee over seven years / Claim allowed / Respondent to pay 1844.50 to Applicant

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Misrepresentation / Agency / Respondents owned land which was subject to a right-of-way used by several neighbours, including Applicants / Slip on right of way caused damage needing repair / Agreement reached for paymment of repair work, but dispute subsequently arose / Applicants seek to recover payment made to contractor directly / Respondent claims agreement not binding, signed under duress, agent had no authority to sign / Held: Respondent not misled, pressure insufficient to amount to duress / Respondent bound by settlement agreement / Held: Respondent created appearance of authority to represent other party / Both Responsdents bound by agreement / Claim allowed, Respondents ordered to pay Applicants $9,033.79

Trespass to goods / Detention of goods / Applicant vehicle was clamped by Respondent / Applicant claims refund of $150 release fee as she was only parked and away from her vehicle briefly / Respondent claims vehicle clamped because it did not display visitor’s permit and it has authority to clamp or tow unauthorised vehicles at the site / Held: no damages suffered by landowner before Applicant returned to vehicle after around one minute / Reasonable to expect that a few minutes would be allowed to obtain permit or make enquiries about permit / Held: Respondent not entitled to clamp Applicant’s car / Claim allowed / Respondent order to refund $150 to Applicant.

Contract / Applicant purchased house from Respondent / Ongoing repayments due to Council under a programme attached to property rates / Applicant stated this obligation to pay was not disclosed to him or included as condition / Applicant claimed sum from Respondent, being amount owing to Council at settlement / Whether the programme information disclosed to Applicant prior to contract being formed / Whether Respondent breached vendor’s warranties / Held: Council programme information was disclosed in writing prior to contract being formed / No breach of warranty because there were no arrears at settlement / Respondent not in breach of vendor’s warranty as repayments were disclosed / Respondent had no liability to pay damages to Applicant / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Respondent contracted for Applicant to drill and install three anchors for a block wall / Three anchors were installed / One anchor failed a load test / Parties agreed a fourth hole would be drilled / Before work completed Respondent cancelled contract / Applicant sought payment for work completed / Respondent counter claimed for cost of labour, materials and work done by another contractor / Held: Applicant did not undertake the work for which he charged with reasonable skill and care / Respondent had right to cancel the contract on the grounds of breach of an essential term / Cancellation not effective until Applicant was advised 14 September after work on fourth anchor / Respondent liable to pay for part of the work on the fourth anchor / Claim allowed / Respondent to pay $785.60 to Applicant .        

Tort / Conversion / Applicant engaged Respondent to move furniture / Dispute arose over payment / Respondent took bedframe and mattress as cover for payment without Applicant’s agreement / Applicant claims Respondent converted bedframe and mattress / Applicant claims $1810.00 being the purchase price of bedframe and mattress or alternatively return of goods / Held: Respondent converted bedframe and mattress / Respondent had no right to goods and removed them from Applicant’s property without her knowledge or permission / Held: Respondent to pay $905.00 to Applicant or alternatively to return bedframe and mattress / Amount ordered accounts for depreciation / Claim upheld

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants purchased splashback from Respondent via Trademe / Applicants claim splashback does not correspond with description given in advertisements / Applicants claim $690.00 refund / Held: splashback did not correspond with description / Held: Respondent to pay Applicants $690.00 / Held: Respondent to collect splashback at own expense / 48 hours notice required for collection / claim upheld

Contract / Respondent installed air conditioning unit for Applicant / Applicant disputed installation with Respondent through Electrical Workers Registration Board and Disputes Tribunal / Applicant completed remedial work on air conditioning unit / Applicant claimed $2,500.00 for remedial work / Whether or not connection at the air conditioning unit was installed in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications was a new cause of action / Held: no new cause of action / Had Applicant taken necessary steps it could have been raised in previous hearings / claim dismissed.