Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Respondent contracted Applicant to machine table cleats / Respondent claims he has not received promised quote and charge was excessive / Applicant claims payment for unpaid invoice / Held: Applicant provided service he was engaged to perform / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,127 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Caveat Emptor / Respondent purchased 7 lots at auction from Applicant / Lots 1 through 6 were purchased and delivered for $6,229.20 / Lot 7 yet to be paid / Respondent had lots 1-6 tested and found that they were fake / Respondent believes lot 7 probably fake / Respondent refuses to pay $1,638 for lot 7 and courier fees / Held: Caveat Emptor rule applies / Applicant not responsible for quality of goods unless misrepresented / No misrepresentation found under CGA and FTA / No reason for lot 7 to be presumed fake by Respondent / Respondent to pay applicant $1,638 for lot 7 / Applicant to deliver lot 7 items to Respondent / Respondent’s counterclaim dismissed / Applicant's claim allowed.

Contract law / Applicants and Respondents signed agency agreement for sale of launch / Applicants submitted they introduced purchaser to Respondents and ultimately facilitated sale of boat / Applicants claim commission they would have received if contract had been performed / Held: there was a causal link between the introduction of the buyer and Respondents and the eventual purchase / Applicants entitled to commission / Respondents ordered to pay Applicants $15,679.50 / claim allowed.

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant bought spa pool from Respondent / Spa pool leaking / Applicant wants to return spa pool to Respondent / Applicant claims full refund $12,000 and additional $1,000 for consequential costs relating to leak / Held: spa pool not of acceptable quality and defect not remedied within reasonable time / Respondent ordered to refund $12,000 to Applicant and collect spa pool at Respondent's expense / Consequential costs of $1,000 not granted as no evidence provided / Claim allowed.

Contract / Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 (CCCF) / Applicant entered into a secured credit agreement with Respondent for the purchase of a car / Applicant defaulted and believes the loan was oppressive (as defined by s118 CCCF) and in breach of s9(c) CCCF / Applicant is a solo mother on the benefit / Applicant claims Respondent failed to do appropriate credit checks / Respondent should have realised Applicant was not in a position to repay such a loan / Respondent counter claims $14,342.40 being the amount owing plus interest (which at the time of filing was not yet charged) / Held: Respondent carried out necessary credit checks / Applicant was unable to prove that the loan was oppressive and the extra charges were unreasonable / Applicant must pay Respondent $14,145.16 (being the account balance presented as evidence) / Claim dismissed / Counterclaim partially granted.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant ordered a grape plant from the Respondent / Applicant paid $44 for the plant / Respondent provided wrong delivery address to the courier company / Applicant claimed $44 for cost of the plant / Held: delivery of plant was a service provided by the Respondent alongside supplying goods / Respondent mistakenly provided wrong address which was a failure of reasonable care and skill / Respondent liable for refund for the plant / Respondent ordered to pay $44 / Claim granted.

Consumers Guarantees Act 1993 / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicants contracted Respondent to provide pre-purchase inspection report for property / Applicants relied on Respondent's report that property was structurally sound and fit for purpose / Applicants bought property that needed repair / Applicants claim Respondents failed to note Dux Quest plumbing and rot on structural supporting beams of balcony / Applicants claim for compensation to repair both issues / Held: Respondent breached statutory guarantee to use reasonable care and skill / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $29,842.10 / Claim allowed.

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant contacted Respondent to organise overseas travel / Applicant's luggage did not make it to his destination due to delay of first flight / Applicant is a photographer and his camera charger was in the luggage / Applicant not given necessary information for hiking tour and missed the first day / Applicant claims full refund of amount paid for trip / Held: Respondent is not liable for the delayed flight but failed to meet its duty of care by not ensuring the Applicant received maps for the hiking trip / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $650 / Claim partially allowed.

Contract / Applicant engaged Respondent for building work / Parties agreed Respondent’s work to cost $50,000 / Applicant made several payments to Respondent, parties disagreed on total amount / Respondent carried out work, but left site following changes to building plans by Applicant’s architect / Applicant claimed refund of some payments made to Respondent, plus $31,000 cost of having another building company complete job / Held: Applicant’s separate claim against architect likely to reveal further information relevant to these proceedings / Hearing adjourned pending outcome of claim against architect.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act / Applicants bought an umbrella from Respondent / Applicants friends became sunburnt after using umbrella / Respondents agreed to replace umbrella / Respondents changed their mind / Refused to provide a refund or deliver the new umbrella / Applicants claim $1,800 for original price of umbrella / Held: Umbrella applicants originally purchased was not fit for purpose / Respondent’s refusal to replace umbrella after agreeing to constitutes breach of contract / Claim allowed / Respondents ordered to pay Applicants $1,800.

Contract / Parties lived together for 46 weeks / Applicant claimed Respondent agreed to make payments to him or contribute towards living expenses in lieu of rent and other costs / Applicant claimed $4,600.00 from Respondent / Held: no valid agreement between the parties / No clarity as to the terms of the agreement / Any arrangement between the parties was vague at best / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant took her laptop to the Respondent for repairs / Respondent lost her laptop’s hard drive / Applicant claimed $10,000.00 in compensation / Held: Respondent failed to take reasonable care of the Applicant’s hard drive / No solid evidential basis for the suggestion that the hard drive date could not have been recovered / Compensation amount considered privacy concerns and inadequate approach to secure a device containing personal customer information / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4,000.00 in compensation / Claim granted.

Negligence / Applicant was driving his truck when he struck a cattle beast /  Animal died and Applicant’s truck was extensively damaged / Applicant filed claim against Respondent, owner of a nearby farm / Applicant filed $10,000 claim for the loss of his vehicle / Held: unable to establish who owned the animal / Evidence indicated Applicant’s vehicle was damaged as a result of collision with the animal / Respondent had a duty of care to ensure all the cattle grazing on his property were not at risk of escaping onto public roads and causing harm or damage to others / Respondent breached his duty of care to road users / Applicant entitled to compensation for damage to his vehicle / Respondent ordered to pay $9,000 to the Applicant, cost of vehicle minus $1,000 for his one month of ownership / Claim granted.