Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Companies Act 1993 / Applicant company placed in liquidation and through its liquidator brings a claim against Respondent for $17,1756.50 / Whether Respondent indebted to Applicant / Whether Respondent entitled to set off for costs of GPS rental contract and sign writing / Whether Respondent indebted to Applicant for unapproved invoices / Whether Respondent commencing or continuing legal proceedings against Applicant by claiming a set-off in breach of the Companies Act / Held: Respondent indebted to Applicant / Held: Respondent entitled to off-set sum owed to Applicant for sign writing / Held: Respondent entitled to off-set outstanding costs of GPS rental / Held: Respondent do not owe Applicant for unapproved invoices / Held: Respondent established a set-off and not a counter-claim / Claim dismissed

Contract / Contracts and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased a second-hand TV / Seller arranged transport through the Respondent paid for by the Applicant / Respondent delivered the TV to the Applicants residence using a third party company / Applicant returned home to find the TV missing / Respondent did not follow up with the third party company / Applicant claimed Respondent was liable for the loss of the TV / Respondent claimed it had no liability because the contract was at the Applicant's risk / Was it of any consequence whether the Applicant had a contract with the Respondent / Whether the contract terms “at the owner’s risk” applied / Held: Applicant is able to make a claim, whether or not he had a contract with the Respondent as he was a consignee of the goods / Contract was not signed by the seller or the Applicant to be "at owner’s risk" / Removal after the delivery was an intentional act / Owner's risk does not apply if the loss was intentionally caused by the car…

Contract / Applicants entered into a contract with the Respondent to hire a caravan / Applicants paid $2,100.12 for hire / Respondent emailed customers stating that all of their customers over the age of 12 would need to have Covid-19 vaccinations to use their caravans / Applicants emailed the Respondent stating that their 12 year old child was not vaccinated / Respondent said the Applicants could keep their booking as their child was on the edge of the limit / Respondent also asked whether the Applicants wished to keep the booking / Applicants sent an email indicating they would be cancelling their booking and seeking a refund / Respondent confirmed that the booking has been cancelled / Responded refunded the Applicants $1,890.12 / Respondents did not refund the reservation charge / Applicants claim the sum of $255 for the reservation charge and the Tribunal application fee / Whether the Applicants unconditionally accepted the offer to cancel the booking and receive a full refund / Wh…

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent conducted a warrant of fitness check for Applicant / Respondent did not properly close the bonnet /  When applicant drove away the bonnet flew up and caused damage to the car / Applicant and insurer claimed costs for repair / Held: Respondent’s failure to close the bonnet or inform Applicant amounted to a failure of reasonable care / Respondents to pay Applicant cost of damages / claim allowed.

Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017, s 35 / Applicant bought a car from the Respondent / Applicant found after sale that the car has substantial defects / Applicant claims that the Respondent misrepresented the condition of the car / Held: no misrepresentation / Applicant is a knowledgeable and experienced motor vehicle trader / Respondent answered Applicant's questions to the best of his knowledge / Applicant chose not to inspect the car / Applicant knew that the Respondent is not an expert mechanic / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant accepted fixed price quote from Respondent for renovation job / Respondent requested additional $5,250 due to cost miscalculation / Applicant refused to pay / Respondent ceased work for a period / Applicant claimed work order, declaration that she was not required to pay the extra amount, and $7,150.00 for losses suffered from unjustified delay / Respondent counterclaimed for additional cost / Held: Respondent did not have the right to impose extra charge of $5,250 / Counterclaim dismissed / Respondent recommenced work which was almost completed by hearing date / Applicant’s calculation of damages too high / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $3,500 in damages / Claim allowed in part.

Insurance / Applicants submitted a claim for stolen BMW with Respondent / Respondent interviewed Appellants and noted incorrect and inconsistent statements / Respondent subsequently declined the claim and cancelled three other insurance policies / Applicants claim $14,70700  in damages to cover the agreed insured value of the car, modifications and legal costs / Applicants seeks to also have the cancellation of their insurance policies reversed / Held: The Applicants suffered the loss claimed / The Respondent was not entitled to decline Applicants claim or cancel the policies / Respondents must pay Applicants $10,13700, including a contribution towards legal costs/ Respondent agrees to reverse its decision to decline the claim and cancel policies / Respondent also agrees to allow Applicants to cancel since they have since moved to another insurer / claim: upheld.

Conversion / Negligence / Courier company delivered a package for the Applicant to her neighbour, the Respondent / Applicant was out of town for a few weeks at the time of delivery / Package required signature for delivery / Documents from the courier company indicated the Applicant’s initials were entered on to the delivery document / When the Applicant returned she made multiple unsuccessful attempts to make contact with the Respondent regarding the package / Matter escalated to the point that a police officer became involved / Evidence from the police officer indicated that the Respondent’s partner received the package and the Respondent placed it at the front of his property / Applicant claimed in conversion for the value of the lost goods, being $424.00 / Is it established that the Respondent had possession of the Applicant’s package at some point / Was the Respondent liable in negligence for converting the goods / What remedy was available to the Applicant / Held: on the balance …

Contract / Applicant and Respondent in a de facto relationship / Applicant paid $87 for Respondent’s daughter’s holiday care / Applicant later took out a loan of 18,000.00 to put on the Respondent’s credit card / Month later Respondent ended the relationship / Applicant asked the Respondent to repay the $18,087.00 stating it was not a gift / Respondent disputed it was a loan to be paid back or that there were any discussions regarding repayments / Respondent gave evidence he had provided for the Applicant and her children financially during the relationship / Parties unable to reach a resolution / Applicant claimed $18,087.00 against the Respondent for repayment of the loan and his daughter’s holiday care / Whether there was an enforceable contract between the parties / If so, whether the Applicant was entitled to claimed $18,087.00 / Held: both parties contributed to the financial running of their household while they were in a relationship / No written agreement or evidence of discus…

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act / Applicants bought travel insurance / Applicants decided to cancel trip on advice of doctors / Applicant claimed for non-refundable portion of trip / Respondent declined claim because of a pre-existing medical condition that had not been declared / Held: Respondent incorrectly applied the definition of a pre-existing claim / Applicant was not aware and could not have been aware she had the medical condition / Had not been investigated or treated for the condition prior to the policy purchase / Applicants entitled to $25,261.40 under the insurance policy / Applicants entitled to $2,000.00 for breaches under the Consumer Guarantees Act and ongoing stress and inconvenience / Respondent did not deal with claim with reasonable care and skill and did not deal with it within a reasonable time / Applicants entitled to refund of the cost of the services of $1,092.00 / Respondent to pay Applicants $28,353.40 in total

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant bought two house plants from the Respondent / Plants did not survive / Applicant claimed a refund of  purchase price/ Applicant argued plants were neither of acceptable quality nor fit for purpose / Whether Applicant proved on the balance of probabilities that the plants he purchased were defective when he purchased them from the Respondent / Held: necessary prove is lacking / Not possible to say that plants would have died because they were not of acceptable quality or were unfit for purpose / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant entered insurance contract with Respondent / Applicant suffered damage to contents caused by dogs / Applicant claimed $3,512.00 for damaged contents / Did losses occur within term of insurance period / If so, did Respondent breach contract by treating each loss as separate events requiring excess deductions / If so, what is remedy / Held: damage likely occurred during insurance period / Respondent breached contract / Likely damage to contents arose from one source or original cause / One excess should have been charged for damage to contents / Respondent to pay Applicant $2,962.00 / Claim granted. 

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant purchased washing machine from First Respondent / Washing machine broke down within short period / Applicant approached First Respondent who put them in contact with Second Respondent / Second Respondent took away washing machine and refunded some of purchase price / Refund delayed for some time / Applicant was without a washing machine and had to make numerous trips to laundrette / During Covid-19 restrictions Applicant was unable to access laundrette / Applicant went to First Respondent numerous times for resolution / Applicant claimed breach of guarantee of acceptable quality under CGA / Applicant claimed damages for refund or replacement, consequential financial losses and consequential losses in form of emotional harm / Applicant claimed $30,000 to be paid equally by the Respondents / Held: breach of guarantee of acceptable quality / First Respondent to pay Applicant $119.00 refund / Emotional harm damages cannot be claimed…