Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants engaged Respondent to complete services relating to their EQC claims / Parties signed contract for services, 4 September 2018 / Delay in completing services / Applicants cancelled contract, 28 January 2021 / Applicants claim refund of $10,420.73, declaration they are not liable to pay invoice of $18,829.38 / Respondent counterclaims payment of $25,078.63 for services provided / Held: Respondent did not comply with obligation to complete services within a reasonable time / Respondent breached consumer guarantee relating to time of completion / Applicant entitled to cancel contract / Claim allowed in part, claim for $10,420.73 dismissed, claim for declaration Applicants not obliged to pay invoice of $18,828.38 allowed / Counterclaim dismissed.

Contract / Car advertised for sale on Facebook Marketplace / Applicant expressed interest / Respondent agreed to hold car until following day for agreed price / Respondent said he would take car for warrant of fitness next morning and adjust price accordingly / Respondent then sold car to another party without contacting Applicant / Respondent claims difference between what he had agreed to pay for the car and cost of getting another similar car, travel costs, and refund of Disputes Tribunal fees / Respondent counterclaimed that claim was frivolous / Held: Consumers Guarantees Act does not apply to the claim / There was a clear offer and agreed terms / There was acceptance of offer / There was adequate consideration / Parties intended to create legal relations / There was a contract between parties / Respondent breached contract by selling car to third party without notice to Applicant / Respondent owes Applicant $2450.00 being the difference between what he would have paid for the car…

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a laptop from the Respondent in 2015 /  In 2019 Applicant took the laptop for repair to an agent of the Respondent / Applicant claimed battery failed prematurely / Applicant claimed the problem with the external charger was a fault, which he should not have to pay for / Whether the laptop failed the guarantee of acceptable quality under the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Whether the battery failed prematurely / Whether the laptop was faulty because the laptop was not charging / Held: evidence indicated that the battery was not faulty / more likely the battery had reached its life of 1000 cycles / Laptop not found to have failed the guarantee of acceptable quality regarding the battery / From the evidence available not possible to determine whether the Applicant had a loss relating to the external charging issue / Claim dismissed

Contract / Negligence / Respondent acted as lawyer for Applicant / Respondent did not advise Applicant about bright-line property tax prior to purchase of property / Applicant claims legal services provided by Respondent were not completed using skill and care of reasonably competent property lawyer / Applicant claims $29,996.40 / Held: Respondent completed legal services using skill and care of reasonably competent property lawyer / exclusion clause inserted into terms of engagement / Claim dismissed

Parking / Contract / Applicant parked car in a commercial car park owned by Respondent / Respondent sent demand to the Applicant for $65 parking fee / Applicant paid $5 of $65 parking fee / Applicant claimed pricing sign in a poorly lit area and sign difficult to read / Applicant sought a declaration he was not liable to pay $65 to the Respondent / Whether Applicant formed a contract with the Respondent / Whether $65 was unjustified penalty / Held: a motorist who enters a public car park which is clearly signed and owned by a commercial operator must be taken to be entering a contract with that operator and to comply with stated conditions / $65 a reasonable sum to protect legitimate interests of Respondent in operating commercial car park / Request for declaration of non-liability dismissed / Respondent not liable to refund the Applicant $5 / Applicant must pay Respondent $60 / claim dismissed

Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Carriage of Goods / Tort of conversion / Applicant purchased toilet from a seller on Trade Me / Contracted Respondent to transport toilet through online booking service / Toilet arrived to Applicant damaged / Respondent advised transportation of ceramics and antiques are not covered under terms and conditions / Toilet was collected by Respondent for assessment, advised it would not be covered due to lack of correct packaging and being a ceramic / Respondent disposed of toilet without consulting Applicant / Applicant claims damage of toilet under carriage of goods provision / Applicant claims in disposing toilet following assessment, Respondent converted goods / Held: Toilet damaged during Respondent’s carriage, liable to pay for loss resulting in damage / Respondent converted damaged toilet, liable to pay damages for loss / Respondent to pay Applicant $1200.00

Contract / Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 (DTA) / Property Law Act 2007 (PLA) / Applicant agreed to rent property to client of Respondent / Representative of Respondent verbally told Applicant that if rent fell into arrears Respondent would ensure arrears paid / Arrears of $6,065.71 when tenancy ended / Tenancy Tribunal ordered against tenant for $5,646.15 / Tenancy Tribunal declined to make monetary order against Respondent / Applicant claims $6,646.15 / Applicant claims contract/quasi contract exists / Applicant claims they have valid grievance / Held: contract formed by oral agreement / Oral agreement involved exchange of valuable consideration, accommodation in exchange for security / Held: contract unenforceable / Contract was contract of guarantee, s 27(4) PLA / Contract not in writing / Held: Applicant has valid grievance and unjust to not hold Respondent accountable / Exclusion in s 11(7) DTA does not apply as Applicant not client of Respondent and not seeking social security benef…

Contract / Respondent and Second Respondent own a farm property / Applicant is Respondent’s daughter / In 2016, parties discussed carrying out a subdivision on the farm property and selling a lot of land to the Applicant and her partner / Surveying work was done on the land / In 2017, parties signed an agreement regarding subdivision / Applicant paid deposit of $32,000 to Respondents / In 2018, district plan changes meant proposed subdivision could not proceed / Parties entered discussions regarding boundary adjustment as opposed to subdivision / Applicant and her new partner were not financially able to proceed with alternative plan / Applicant sought refund of the deposit / Held: reasons outside the parties control meant the deal could not proceed / 2017 agreement was binding and enforceable / Agreement meant Applicant entitled to refund of deposit / Applicant reduced her claim to $30,000 on basis that Respondents paid back $2,000 of the deposit / Respondents ordered to pay the Appli…

Contract / Breach / Remedy / Applicant and family group booked two family rooms at hostel / First Respondent Manager at hostel, hostel owned and operated by Second Respondent / After late check in Applicant decided rooms were unsuitable and left, was charged full amount of accomodation plus fees / Applciant claims for refund of accomodation charges / Whether Respondents entitled to charge for accomodation, whether Applicant entitled to refund / Held: applicant accepted terms and conditions of contract / Held: Respondent entitled to charge for accommodation in accordance with contract / Claim dismissed    

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993/ Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Carrier of Goods / Applicant engaged the Respondent to uplift and transport her items to a different region / Applicant paid $10,953 15 to Respondent for the service including $998.00 for the insurance / Many of the items were damaged on arrival and some were missing / Items were either repaired or a cash settlement was made by the insurance company / Applicant sought a refund of the amount paid for the service and an additional $14,000.00 for distress and inconvenience / The total amount sought was $25,000.00 / Did the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) apply / If so, did the Respondent breach the CGA by failing to provide its services with reasonable care and skill / If the CGA applied was the Applicant entitled to a refund of the amount paid for the service of $10,953.15 / If the CGA did not apply, was the Applicant entitled to compensation under the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA) / Is the A…

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant provided structural engineering services to Respondents / Respondents did not want to pay remaining balance invoice / Respondent claimed they did not receive satisfactory or timely services / Held: Applicant breached the contract as the plan provided was not prepared with reasonable care and skill / Respondents breached the contract as they failed to follow the remedies available under s 32 of the CGA / Respondents obliged to pay Applicant $452.81 / Claim granted.  

Sale and Purchase / Further term that required $20,000 retainer for any remedial dental work / Applicant claiming $20,000 owing to them / Respondent counter-claiming $17,631.85 for breach of warranty, legal costs and conversion / Retention fund covered a two-year period / Implied term that evidence of work would be provided / Some work claimed as remedial work still to be undertaken and outside of two year period / Held: legitimate remedial work of $11,927.85 has been carried out / Respondent to pay Applicant $8,072.15

Contract / Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 / Applicant engaged Respondent to carry out work at property / Quote from Respondent was $552.00 for two persons working four hours / Only one hour was actually worked / Applicant claims she was induced to enter contract on misrepresentation and is not liable in respect of amount payable under contract / Held: representation of required hours did contain a misrepresentation / Appropriate charge for two person working for one hour should have been $138.00 / Claim allowed / Applicant ordered to pay $138.00 to Respondent / Respondent ordered to provide Applicant bank details, if not done by specified date Applicant is declared not liable for amount owed