Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Respondent provided immediate and conventional denture to Applicant / Applicant claims neither denture of acceptable quality or fit for purpose / Applicant claims reimbursement of $2,502.00 / Was immediate denture of acceptable quality? / Was conventional denture of acceptable quality? / If not, is Applicant entitled to reimbursement / Held: immediate denture was of acceptable quality per s 7 CGA / Held: conventional denture not of acceptable quality / Held: Applicant not entitled to refund for immediate denture; entitled to refund of $650.00 for conventional denture plus mileage costs / Respondents ordered to pay Applicant $662.00 / Claim allowed in part.  

Property / Contract / Applicants purchased property from Respondents / Applicants claim repair and replacement costs due to respondents breaching agreement that chattels would be in working order and failing to clean and repair downpipe / Held: Respondents breached agreement by failing to provide pool pump and solar heating system in reasonable working order / Claim allowed / Respondents to pay Applicants $10,152.24.

Negligence / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / Applicant and Respondent were drivers in vehicle collision / Respondent intended to turn right into driveway as he did so Applicant began to overtake and vehicles collided / Applicant stated Respondent did not indicate / Applicant claimed $250.00 for his insurance excess for car repairs / Whether Respondent was responsible for collision / If so, whether costs were reasonable / Held: not proven that Respondent was responsible for collision / Parties have differing recollections of events / Not proven on balance of probabilities that Respondent failed to indicate / Not reasonable for Respondent to have kept constant watch on car behind him whilst making turn / Not proven that Respondent was responsible for collision / Claim dismissed.

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent completed retro-fit double glazing of Applicant’s home / Applicant experienced various problems with installation which culminated in meeting between the parties / Agreed that Second Respondent would remediate problems with original work and complete additional work / Applicant claimed $11,356.08 from Respondent for refund of quote and payment for original work / Applicant also claimed $3,797.00 from Second Respondent for price of additional work and further claims from both Respondents of $567.77 / Were services provided by Respondent done with reasonable care and skill / If not, was Applicant entitled to refund from Respondent / Were services provided by Second Respondent reasonably fit for purpose / If not, did Applicant or agent contribute to solution installed / If not, was Applicant entitled to refund from Second Respondent / Was Applicant entitled to costs / If so, who should pay the costs / Held: Respondent did not provide services with…

Contract / Applicant contracted with Respondent to supply and fit tyres, rims and lift kit on Respondent’s vehicle / Applicant claims $4,375.00 for balance of unpaid invoice and collection costs / Respondent counter-claims $5,000.00 for illegal work and recovery cost of original rims and tyres / What were terms of contract and did Respondent breach by failure to pay or did Applicant breach by failure to return original equipment / Was work carried out with reasonable care and skill and was outcome fit for purpose / What remedy, if any, available / Held: parties agreed Respondent would pay $9,890.00 and agreement was payment on delivery / Nothing in agreement about collection costs / Agreement included Plaintiff retaining original equipment / Held: no breach of standard of reasonable fitness for purpose or failure to exercise reasonable care and skill / Held: remedy for breach is to place affected party in position would have been in if contract performed / Claim allowed, counter-claim …

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Respondent relocated water meter on Applicants rental property, a leak developed / Respondent agreed to fix leak and provide leak allowance for lost water / Applicants reported further leak, Respondent carried out repairs / Respondent provided further leak allowances and partially paid for water use invoices and charged Applicants for remaining cost / Applicants claim amount charged for estimated water usage excessive / Applicants claim $5,000 for declaration of non-liability on outstanding invoice of $1,056.80 plus damages for distress and time spent resolving matter / Held: Applicant not liable to pay Respondent $289.80 / Respondent overestimated usage / Insufficient evidence of quantifiable loss to award damages / Claim allowed

Negligence /  Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / Applicant and Respondent were drivers in a vehicle collision / Both parties accepted that they did not see the other car until impact / Applicant brought a claim of $2,622.00 against Respondent / Whether Respondent caused the collision / If so, did Applicant contribute to the collision  / If so, what was the remedy / Held: Respondent was responsible (at least) in part for the collision / Respondent had an express duty to make sure the road was clear / Respondent did not see the Applicant pull out until it was too late / Applicant had a duty to make sure the road was clear before pulling out onto the road / Taken into account that the Applicant did not see the Respondent’s car until she heard the screech of brakes / Respondent contributed to the collision / Sum that Respondent is ordered to pay reduced by a third to reflect Applicant’s contribution / Applicant ordered to pay Respondent $1,748.00 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Agreement to purchase caravan / Respondent paid deposit of $3000.00 / Respondent pulled out of deal before full purchase price paid / Applicant sought order from the Tribunal that he was not liable to repay the deposit / Held: contract was condictional on Respondent having finance approced / Finance not approved / Sale of caravan did not become unconditional / Nothing in writing to say deposit was non-refundable / No loss suffered by Applicant / Applicant not entitled to retain deposit / Claim dismissed, Applicant to pay Respondent $3000.00 deposit.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent engaged Applicant to supply and install steel roof / Respondent paid 50% deposit followed by later 25% payment totalling $8,000.00 / Applicant installed incorrect roofing material /  Applicant contracted scaffolders who damaged Respondent’s carport roof / Applicant claims $2,600.00 from Respondent for unpaid balance / Respondent counter-claims $8,000.00 for failure to install correct roofing material / Held: Applicant to refund Respondent $8,000.00 / Roofing not completed to adequate standard /  Applicant failed to adequately remedy issue / Applicant’s claim dismissed

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Guarantee of acceptable quality / Rejection of goods / Damages / Applicant purchased car from Respondent in January 2019 / Mechanical breakdown insurance was taken out in relation to the car with the Second Respondent / In March 2020 the car’s engine was replaced by the Third Respondent / Applicant states replacement engine has failed and claims refund of purchase price and repair costs / Held: Applicant not entitled to reject car and receive refund from Respondent / Lost right to reject goods as not done within reasonable time per s 20 CGA / Held: Applicant entitled to damages of $1844.12 from Respondent / Car not of acceptable quality per s 18 CGA / Claim allowed in part / Claim against Second and Third Respondents dismissed

Contract / Veterinarian services / Applicant presented dog to Second Respondent at the First Respondent’s vet clinic for treatment / Dog was seriously ill and its condition deteriorated / Applicant took dog to alternative veterinarian for treatment / Agreement made that Applicant would pay reduced amount to First Respondent / First Respondent later sent another invoice for $671.00 to Applicant / Applicant sought compensation of $9,357.98 for alternative veterinarian bill and other costs / Whether the Second Respondent was personally liable under the contract for treatment of the dog / Whether the treatment of the dog was carried out with reasonable care and skill / What loss had the Applicant suffered / Held: contract for care and treatment of the dog was with the First Respondent, not the Second Respondent personally / Evidence suggested that treatment of the dog was not carried out with reasonable care and skill, particularly treatment provided by the Second Respondent / Applicant sh…

Negligence / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Guarantee / Reasonable care and skill / Applicant entered a building contract with Respondent / Respondent hired subcontractor to pour coloured concrete driveway and patio for Applicant / Applicant noticed cracks in patio surface and claims refund of cost of patio from Respondent / Whether Respondent failed to use reasonable care and skill, whether Respondent has failed to meet prescribed Building Code Standard within 6-8 hours after initial hardening and, if no cause proven, can inference be drawn from the fact that crack occurred / Held: no proven failure of competency or reasonable care and skill on part of Respondent / Held: timing of cuts meets the Building Code’s expectations, no breach of s 362I(1)(a)(i) / Held: standard allowing tolerance for cracks in concrete sufficient explanation as to why inference cannot be drawn that crack would not have occurred without negligence / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Duty of care / Applicant’s car was parked near a hockey stadium / Ball from the turf damaged the applicant’s car / Applicant claimed $1475.00 for damage to his car / Whether the respondents owed a duty of care / What duty was breached / If so, whether the breach caused damage and was foreseeable / What was the reasonable costs of repairing the damage / Held: duty of care for the occupier of the turf to take reasonable care to prevent harm resulting from their activities on the turf/ Applicant was a hockey player and was accustomed to how the turf was used / Applicant failed to discharge onus of proof that there had been a breach of duty of care by the respondents / No breach of duty of care found / claim dismissed.