Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Negligence / Private nuisance / Applicant and Respondent are neighbours / Claim relates to various matters including boundary fencing, garden plantings and damage to property / Applicant claimed $1625 for damages to ranch slider glass and concreting / Respondent counterclaimed $5,000 for damages to trees / Held: Respondent's palms caused damage to Applicant's ranch slider glass / Applicant caused damages to Respondent's trees / Applicant ordered to pay Respondent $425 / Claim partially allowed

Contract / Applicant parked at pay and display carparking site monitored by Respondent / Applicant purchased and displayed three hour ticket / Respondent towed Appellant’s car within three hours / Applicant claims they did not breach contractual parking provisions justifying towing / Applicant claims $750.93, being towing charge, Uber fare, various time costs, Tribunal filing fee and miscellaneous costs / Held: insufficient evidence to prove Applicant breached parking provisions / towing unjustified / Held: costs awarded for unjustified tow charge and Uber charge only / claim upheld, Respondent ordered to pay $306.58 to Applicant

Transport law / Land Transport Rule: Vehicle Standards Compliance 2002 / Applicant purchased car from Respondent / Applicant discovered numerous issues with car, including that WOF was issued more than one month prior to delivery / Held: Section 9.12 LTR: VSC 2002 requires vendor ensure motor vehicle certified for in-service fitness within one month of delivery to purchaser / Purchaser entitled to remedy where they have not waived one-month requirement / Applicant entitled to reject car and recover purchase price / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $3,000.00 / Applicant ordered to return car to Respondent

Contract / Contract and Commercial law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased car from Respondent / Listing stated car had no mechanical issues and was regularly serviced  / Car had mechanical issues and Applicant lost use for over three months waiting for repair / Applicant claims $1,393.80 in damages / Held: representation that car had been regularly serviced was false / Held: statement of opinion implied no obvious signs that would cause an ordinary driver to suspect any mechanical issues / Held: Respondents statements induced Applicant to buy car / Respondent liable for damages / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay $1,393.80 to Applicant

Contract / Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 / Applicant lent Respondent $500 / Payment plan was put in place to repay debt but payment stopped / Applicant claims $1,477.18 from Respondent for outstanding amount plus fees and interest / Issue whether contract was consumer credit contract under CCCFA / Held: contract is a consumer credit contract  /  This was stated on the front page of the contract / Issue whether Applicant entitled to enforce contract / Held: contract cannot be enforced per s 99 of the CCCFA / Applicant did not comply with mandatory initial disclosure requirement  / Claim dismissed  

Property / Property Law Act 2007 / Applicant and Respondent were neighbours / Applicant claimed the Respondent cut down 76 trees on the Applicant’s property / The cut trees ran from the start of the Respondent’s driveway and stopped at the end of his house / Applicant claimed $14,990.00 to replace trees /  Whether on the balance of probabilities the Respondent cut down the 76 trees on the Applicant’s property / If the Respondent did then what was he liable for in relation to the cut trees / Held: on the evidence more likely than not that the Respondent, or someone under his control, cut down the trees / Respondent claimed no dispute between him and the Applicant / Fact that Applicant said Respondent cut down the trees which Respondent denied meant there was a dispute between the parties / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $14,990.00 to replace trees by specified date / Claim allowed

Negligence / Car belonging to Applicant hit by car driven by Respondent / Respondent hit car while swerving to avoid another car / Applicant’s car written off / Applicant claims $3,000.00 representing what it considered the pre collision value of the car to be / Held: collision not caused by Respondent failing to take sufficient care / Claim dismissed, Respondent not liable to pay amount claimed

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Guarantee of reasonable care and skill / Damages / Applicant purchased a specially made kilt from Scotland / Applicant took kilt to Respondent to be hemmed / Respondent cut 6cm from kilt / Applicant claims $688.00 for refund and damages due to kilt being cut / Held: Respondent responsible for confirming hem would be cut / Respondent failed to use reasonable care and skill in ascertaining service Applicant wanted / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant 25 percent cost of kilt being $182.50.

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant carried out roofing work on building owned by Respondent / Respondent sought compensation for poor workmanship and damage to building / Applicant counterclaimed for amount outstanding / whether roofing work carried out with reasonable care and skill under s28 / whether failures substantial & if so, how much was owed under contract / Held: work did not comply with s28 as it was undertaken in a storm & was not completed to an adequate standard / failures substantial & resonable consumer test met / Respondent entitled to refund of labour & contribution to consequential loss / Applicant enitled to payment towards sums expended on material / Respondent ordered to pay $6,504.12 to Applicant / claim allowed

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a tent from Respondent to live in while new home built / minor defects in tent and size incorrectly stated on Respondent’s website / Applicant seeks to reject tent and receive a refund / no evidence that Applicant contributed to any damage to tent / Held: goods supplied by description are guaranteed to comply with that description / s 9, CGA / tent 23 per cent smaller than advertised / therefore, tent not compliant with description given and not of acceptable quality / as floor area of tent cannot be remedied, issue of whether tent defects were pre-existing or caused by Applicant does not need to be addressed for acceptable quality claim / insufficient evidence Applicant damaged tent after purchase / therefore, Applicant entitled to reject tent under s 20, CGA / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to refund $4850 to Applicant

Contract / Building Act 2004 / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent installed cladding to Applicants’ home during its construction / Applicants claimed sealant used failed & required replacement / sealant used not the one specified in plans / whether respondnet breached performance obligation & if so, did that cause loss / Held: implied warranties under Building Act applied to work & work needed to comply with Building Code / sealant failed & Respondent in breach of implied warranties / loss related to remedial work to remove & replace sealant / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $15, 000 / claim allowed.

Contract / Respondent company owned a number of planes and offered rides to the public / Applicant was responsible for providing required Quality Assurance / Applicant unpaid for some of his Quality Assurance work / Applicant claimed for Quality Assurance fees, materials purchased and legal fees /  Whether there was a contract between the Applicant and Respondent / If so, whether the contract had been breached and what damages were payable / Whether the Applicant purchased goods to the benefit of the Respondent / If so, whether the Respondent was required to pay for those goods / Whether the Applicant can recover his legal costs / Held: Binding contract between the Applicant and Respondent / Respondent breached contract / Applicant provided invoice for $2,500.00 which was unpaid / Applicant entitled to that amount from the Respondent / Applicant provided invoice for goods purchased for the Respondent / Applicant expended $6,184.24 of his own money to assist the Respondent / Would be un…

Breach of Contract / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant offered Respondent Facebook marketing package over uninvited phone call / Applicant assured Respondent that fee of $99 plus GST was all Respondent would pay “today” for “ad creation” / Respondent provided payment details / Applicant emailed twelve-month contract and “ad creation” to Respondent for approval, then  deducted two payments for the twelve-month period totalling $5,451.00 / Respondent claims only agreed to initial fee payment, claims full refund of second and third payments Held: while Respondent told only $99 plus GST fee would be charged “today”, Applicant intended to deducted $5,564.85 / misleading conduct / FTA, s 9 / breach of contract /Applicant acted without authority deducting more than the $99 plus GST / claim allowed, Applicant to refund the $5,451 to the Respondent