Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Applicant parked car in Respondent’s carpark / Sign indicated that a ticket was required to be on display / Applicant failed to display ticket and received breach notice of $65 / Applicant unsuccessfully disputed notice / Further $20 added for late payment, which Applicant paid / Applicant parked in another one of the Respondent’s carparks / Applicant did not activate carpark payment app properly / Applicant received $60 breach notice, which she disputed / Respondent advised Applicant they would waive this notice and pay Applicant $45 for filing fee to the Tribunal / Applicant did not accept offer in full as she wanted the initial breach notice considered / Held: No suggestion that full terms and conditions not visible / Applicant breached agreement by failing to obtain and display ticket / No evidence that $85 fee was unreasonable / Claim for refund dismissed / Respondent to pay $45 for filing in accordance with their offer / Claim granted in part.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant bought a car online from Respondents / Applicant claims a full refund of $9000 plus costs incurred from the Respondents due to alleged misrepresentation by the Respondents / Held: There was no misrepresentation by the Respondent that induced the Applicant to purchase car because Applicant had the car checked by a professional mechanic / Claim dismissed.

Damages / Applicants and the Respondent entered into a sale and purchase agreement for a property / Respondent did not settle on date required by the contract / Applicants claimed $2,144,24 for additional moving costs, loss of income and compensation for emotional and psychological distress / Whether the Respondent was liable to pay damages / Whether the costs claimed by the Applicants were reasonable additional expenses or damages / Held: additional moving costs reasonably foreseeable / Amount claimed for additional moving costs was payable as an expense resulting from delayed settlement / Loss of income and additional food costs foreseeable / Emotional and psychological distress claim not considered / Respondent liable to pay damages for late settlement under the contract / Respondent ordered to pay $1634.00 to the Applicants / Claim granted.

Contract / Consumers Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased dog from Respondent / Applicant claims the dog has two significant health issues / Applicant took the dog to the veterinarian for treatment / Applicant claimed $30,000 in vet bills / Held: Respondent supplied dog in trade / Dog was not of acceptable quality because of health conditions / Claim partly allowed / Respondent to pay Applicant $3,307.83.

Contract / Applicant and Respondents were in a relationship / Applicant and Respondents jointly purchased a bed for $7600 / Applicant paid his half and Respondent paid under a credit contract with the retailer / Applicant claimed $3800 from the Applicant for his half share following their split / Applicant also claimed $9510.12 for foreign travel and $1550 for tiling work/ Held: foreign trip and tiling were social arrangements that had no contract basis / Applicant entitled to compensation for half share of the bed / Respondent preferred to keep the bed / Respondent ordered to pay $2000 as per valuations and Respondent use of bed after separation/ Claim granted in part.

Jurisdiction / Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 / Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) / Applicant responded to an ad for a studio room for rent by the Respondent / Parties discussed a draft agreement / Night before Applicant was planning to move in the Respondent said they were unable to come to a mutual agreement / Respondent said the Applicant was not considered to be the right fit for the property / Applicant did not move in / Held: not accepted that the property was being used principally as a place of residence by the Respondent / Studio unit was self-contained / Unit was at a different address from the Respondent’s residence / Not possible to contract out of the RTA / Claim struck out in the Disputes Tribunal / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act / Respondent contacted applicant seeking legal advice / The relationship was on and off with interim periods where the Respondent engaged other barristers / Applicants claim $15,988 for legal services performed / Respondent claims she Applicant engaged her as a client against her wishes and carried out unnecessary work / Respondent claims Applicant gave incorrect advice / Held: Where a professional service provider is contacted, reasonable to assume that the service provider will begin charging from the first contact / There is no proven breach of legal duty to exercise “reasonable care and skill” / Claim allowed, Respondent ordered to Applicant $15,988.

Contract / Applicants purchased a puppy for $5000 from Respondents / Applicants returned puppy to Respondents / Respondents found a new owner for the puppy / Applicants claimed $4999 from Respondents / Held: Respondents breached contract as they did not take reasonable endeavours to try and sell the puppy / Factors considered for compensation amount included the puppy was not defective, no guarantee of sale of puppy, likely that older puppies are less expensive, new owner incurred costs and Respondents had incurred expenses / Applicants should be compensated $750 for breach of contract / Claim granted.

Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA) / Respondent advertised a car online /Applicant purchased the car after test driving it / Applicant was driving the car back to their home when there was an issue with the car / Issue proved to be more expensive than the car was worth / Applicant alleged Respondent misrepresented condition of the car / Applicant claimed refund of $14,250.00 plus $249.80 for road user charges, a total of $ 14,499.80/ Held: Respondent had taken the vehicle to a mechanic prior to the sale/ Respondent supplied the Applicant the service details/ There was no misrepresentation / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant listed vehicle for sale online and Respondent bid $120,000 to purchase it / Respondent won bid but Respondent could not contact Applicant / Applicant relisted vehicle and it sold at a lower bid, $108,100 / Applicant claimed $12,100 for loss and cost of relisting / Held: legally binding contract formed when Respondent won bid / Respondent breached contractual obligations by not following through with purchase / Applicant entitled to damages / Respondent ordered to pay 12,100 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Land Transport Road User Rule 2004 / Applicant and Respondent collided at an intersection / Applicant’s insurance company sought recovery of repair costs / Respondent claimed Applicant did not keep a proper look out / Held: each party contributed to collision / Primary responsibility lay with Respondent as it was his decision to park in front of a car to one side, away from direction of travel / Applicant also failed to keep a proper look out / Responsibility lies 60% with Respondent and 40% with Applicant / Respondent ordered to pay $1,175.72 to Applicant’s insurer / Claim granted in part.

Contract / Applicant manufactures condiments and sauces and purchased native botanicals from Respondent for several years to use in its products / Applicant paid for product and freight but Respondent failed to supply the  final shipment / Applicant claimed refund $3,783.50 and $21,600 loss of profit / Held: Applicant entitled to refund of amount paid for product not received / Applicant not entitled for compensation for loss of profit / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $3,783.50 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA) / Applicant provided Respondent with valuation / Both parties agreed on price / Respondent’s customer decided not to get goods replaced through Applicant / Applicant claims $23,310.00 in lost profits / Applicant claims Respondent is in breach of contract / Held: Respondents in breach of contract / Respondents liable for Applicant’s loss of profit / Respondents to pay Applicant $15,000.00 / Claims for legal costs and filing fees dismissed / Claim partially upheld.