Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / transfer of title / Applicant purchased motorbike from Respondent / bike had been stolen from its original owner and was sold to the Respondent / Police advised Applicant to return bike to its original owner/ Applicant claimed return of the purchase price, plus transport costs and filing fee / Held: bike stolen property / seller cannot pass on title to a good that he or she does not have / implied condition which entitles buyer to a refund and costs if seller does not have title / exceptions to rule did not apply / absence of conviction and  fact that Respondent had possession of goods did not affect the true owner’s rights / Respondent liable to refund purchase price of bike and cost of transporting it back to original owner, but not filing fee / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $6,850.00

Contract / Applicant hired campervan from Respondent / Applicant paid for collision damage waiver / waiver meant excess could be waived under certain conditions / conditions required applicant to exercise reasonable care / Applicant drove campervan under beam that was lower than its height, causing damage / Respondent deducted excess / Applicant claimed waiver covered damage / Held:  Applicant failed to take reasonable care in driving vehicle / Applicant failed to notice clearance signs / Applicant lost right to be indemnified through terms and conditions of contract / claim dismissed

Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / sale of goods / Respondent supplied grapevine rootstocks to Applicant / Applicant examined rootstocks after delivery during processing period/ Applicant rejected a number of rootstocks and invoiced Respondent for that amount / Respondent disputed timeframe for rejection / Applicant claimed invoiced amount, legal fees and interest / Respondent claimed rootstocks were not rejected within a reasonable time / Held: goods rejected within a reasonable time / reasonable timeframe for examining goods determined as processing period / given nature of goods and quantity supplied, reasonable for Applicant to examine goods over processing period  / no particular loss to Respondent as a result of being notified after delivery / no provision in contract for payment of legal fees / Respondent liable to pay part of invoiced amount as at date of notification, plus interest / Respondent ordered to pay $999.81 to applicant.

Contract / Property Law Act 2006 / Limitation Act 2010 / Applicants owned farm with easement granted to Respondents for telecommunications facility / No licence agreement reached on paying annual rental for occupation rights / Respondents said they could pay and Applicants sent invoices for annual rent / Applicants claim unpaid invoices of $5,750 / Respondents counterclaim for $13,065.08 saying they paid by mistake / Held: no enforceable contract for payment of annual rent / No further consideration supplied by Applicants for Respondent's promise to pay as already bound by easements / Held: previous payments made by mistake / Held: money not recoverable / Inequitable to require Applicants to repay money paid by mistake as received in good faith / Outcome: claim dismissed

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Breach of duty of care / Applicant hired Respondent to transport house lot to England / Contract was for one 20 foot container / Goods required extra space resulting in an additional charge of $2471.00 / Applicant claimed for a refund of additional charges based on quote of set fee for the transportation of all goods / Held: quoted price in contact for one 20 foot container only / Contract price based on volume of goods limited to fit inside 20 foot container / Respondent provided service under Consumer Guarantees Act / Held: Respondent in breach of responsibilities under ss 28 and 29 of the CGA for misinformation of volume required to transport goods and that price did not include all goods / Applicant did not cancel contract until after event / Loss limited to incorrect advise, inconvenience and unexpected extra payment / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay $815.43 to Applicant.

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Guarantee of acceptable quality / Remedies / Applicant had house carpeted by Respondent as result of an insurance claim / Four years later Applicant noted worn area in carpet under leg of stool used daily / Respondent agreed to repair worn area / Prior to repair Applicant noticed other worn patches in carpet and notified Respondent carpet defective / Respondent took sample of carpet and determined it was not defective / Applicant claims cost of replacing carpet; carpet not of acceptable quality / Respondent claims rubbing on carpet by stool leg cause of wear / Held: no breach of guarantee of acceptable quality under the CGA / Damage caused by excessive wear and tear and the Applicant’s dog / No need to consider remedies / Claim dismissed

Contract / Employment / Respondent was hired as temporary employee of Applicant / Respondent’s employment with Applicant ended / Respondent’s name was mistakenly added to Applicant’s payroll hours and he was paid for 30.98 hours of work / Respondent did not return mistaken payment / Applicant claims $1,114.94 including debt collection costs and costs of proceedings / Held: the matter falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (ERA) / Claim dismissed

Contract / Applicant’s ensuite vanity unit replaced with new vanity under insurance policy with Respondent / By end of year the edge of one door of the vanity had swollen and cracked due to water damage / Applicant claims $2044.97 for the cost to replace the vanity / Held: Applicant entitled to vanity of comparable quality and fitness for purpose as old vanity / Respondent liable to pay for the lower quotation of $1,804.35 to install a new vanity / Claim allowed

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants purchased a clothes dryer from Respondent with an extended warranty / dryer underwent repairs during warranty period / Applicant claimed dryer still in need of repair / Respondent’s agent inspected dryer and found no repair required / Applicant claimed dryer not durable / Applicant wished to reject the good and receive refund of purchase price, cost of  extended warranty and  Tribunals’ filing fee / Held: cause of failures not sufficiently established / Tribunal could not exclude  possibility of user issues / no breach of guarantee in terms of durability or fitness for purpose / no remedy under Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 available / claim dismissed

Contract / Misrepresentation / Contractual Remedies Act 1979 / Applicants purchased a car online for $2,270.00 / When applicants inspected the car the seller informed them he worked at a wreckers yard / Car developed mechanical issues days later / When the applicants contacted the seller for a refund the seller’s employer said they should deal with him instead / Whether there were any mispresentations made to the buyers about the car / Whether the misrepresentations induced the contract / Whether the misrepresentations were made by or on behalf of the seller / Whether there any remedies available under the Fair Trading Act 1986 / Held: misrepresentations were made regarding the car / Misrepresentations induced the applicants to buy the car / Seller did not inform applicants that he was selling on behalf of the wreckers yard but later events indicated he was / Found that misrepresentations made to the applicant were made by or on behalf of the seller by the Respondent, which is the sell…

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant contracted Respondent to deliver a dirt bike / Respondent did not have cartage insurance / bike was stolen off back of Respondent’s truck / Applicant claimed value/purchase price of bike / Applicant claimed Respondent negligent in leaving bike unsecured and unattended / Held: carriage of goods done at “limited carrier’s risk” / no written agreement / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2000.00

Agency / Personal guarantee / Personal liability / Applicant gave credit account to Respondent’s business / Second Respondent was employee of business / Second Respondent purchased items using business account for personal use without authorisation / Respondent queried charges made by Second Respondent / Applicant made claim against Respondent under personal guarantee for $2,013.3 plus costs of $550.92 / Applicant claimed sum and costs from Second Respondent in the alternative / Held: Second respondent did not have actual or apparent authority to purchase on Respondent’s account / No evidence that Respondent held out Second Respondent as agent / Respondent informed Applicant of unauthorised purchases as soon as known / Held: Respondent not personally liable to Applicant despite guarantee / Debts incurred by Second Respondent were not authorised by Respondent / Held: Second Respondent liable to pay Applicant / Claim allowed / Second Respondent ordered to pay $2,013.3 to Applicant / Appl…

Negligence / Collision between Applicant’s and Respondent’s vehicles / Respondent was a driving instructor and the Second Respondent was driving his car as part of her driving lesson / Applicant and his insurer claim the cost of repairing the Applicant’s car of $3,883.78 / Respondent counterclaims the costs of repair to his car / Whether the parties reached a binding settlement agreement / Whether Second Respondent gave way / Whether Respondent negligent in failing to provide adequate supervision / Whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of the Applicant / What sum should be paid between the parties / Held: Respondent offered to get Applicant’s car repaired / Applicant’s response did not constitute a binding settlement merely negotiations / Applicant was under no obligation to continue with the negotiations and was free to decide to proceed through his insurer / Respondent admitted negligence / Respondent was on the phone at the time of the crash / High level of respo…