Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Applicant purchased property from Respondents / Applicant claims dishwasher did not work on settlement in breach of agreement / Applicant claims $2000 being cost of replacement diswasher / Whether Respondents breached agreement; if so, what damage was caused; and what, if anything, is Applicant entitled to claim / Held: more likely than not dishwasher in reasonable working order at date of settlement / Claim dismissed

Contract / Applicant tried to purchase camera from Respondent for $2986.00 / Transaction declined twice / Told that he could take promotional items and buy the camera in a different city / Applicant discovered that $5972.00 had been deducted from his account / Applicant claimed $30,000 in compensation / Held: Respondent’s did not breach a contractual obligation / Fault was with the third party eftpos service / Parties unable to be conclude the contract they both wished to be bound by / Applicant has no cause of action against the Respondent because no contract existed / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act / Applicant contracted by Respondent to supply and install water treatment plant for main house and carry out additional work relating to tanks on property / Respondents disputed amount invoiced and calculated they had been overcharged / Respondents reduced $13,557.80 from the $40,337.98 invoiced by Applicant / Applicant’s sent revised invoice and statement owing balance outstanding of $11,886.78 / Applicant claims this amount from Respondents / Held: Consumer Guarantees Act applies only to work covered by the quote / Aspects of project were not carried out with reasonable care and skill / Ozone filter was of acceptable quality and fit for purpose / Respondents refused to allow reinstallation of filter / Claim allowed, Respondents to pay Applicants $3,043.90

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Guarantee of acceptable quality / Applicant purchased vehicle for business being sold by Second Respondent on behalf of First Respondent / Rust on vehicle hidden by vinyl covering on roof at time of sale / Applicant claims compensation from Respondents / Held: reasonable consumer would consider rust minor defect in vehicle of that age / Held: Applicant consumer under CGA / Business use does not exclude Applicant from being a consumer / Second Respondent claims not liable as supplier as selling on behalf / Held: Second Respondent supplier under s 2(1) of the CGA / Supplier includes agent / Supplier to be liable for repairs / First and Second Respondent claim not liable as not RMVTs / CGA not limited to RMVTs / Held: First and Second Respondent could be held liable under the CGA / Both party to sale / Claim allowed / Respondents ordered to pay $828.00 to Applicant

Contract / Applicant booked service for a car / Applicant requested invoice sent to owner of car / Question of whether applicant was liable for debt or acting as agent for the owner / Held that applicant was acting as an undisclosed agent / Contract not formed when applicant phoned to book the service / Evidence that owner of the car accepted the quote when phone was passed to him to by the applicant / Held: applicant’s claim for non-liability upheld

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Guarantee of services completed within a reasonable time and reasonable price / Guarantee of services carried out with reasonable care and skill / Respondent hired Applicant to carry out landscaping works around their pool / Agreement was varied to include additional work / Respondents were unhappy with time and cost to carry out the work / Respondents ended agreement and did not pay full sum invoiced by Applicant / Applicant claims $25,533.74 in relation to unpaid invoices / Respondents counterclaim $8,000 in relation to the service carried out and costs of reinstatement / Held: guarantees under ss 30 and 31 of the CGA relating to services completed in a reasonable time and at a reasonable cost do not apply / Contract determined end date for work and cost estimate for work / Held: service not carried out with reasonable care and skill per guarantee in s 28 of the CGA / Failure to property document project in writing or pictures relating to des…

Negligence / Respondent poured concrete outside Applicant’s commercial car yard / concrete splashed on Applicant’s cars damaging paint / Respondent paid $562.50 towards paint repair / Applicant claims Respondent was negligent in pouring concrete / Applicant claims they were not contributorily negligent by not protecting cars on property / Applicant claims $9,420.00 for cost of repairing paintwork on car, depreciation on car and Tribunal filing fee / Held: Respondent negligent in pouring concrete / Respondent did not take steps to limit potential for concrete to splash into neighbouring properties / Held: Applicant was not contributorily negligent / Applicant’s cars were on property / Respondent did not give adequate warning of potential concrete splashing / Held: Respondent to pay Applicant $1,687.50 / Respondent only liable for cost of paint repair / Applicant could have avoided depreciation / Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to award costs / Respondent already paid $562.50 of $2,2…

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Breach of contract / Applicant entered a contract with Respondent to convert Respondent’s truck chassis and attach a tank / Respondent had an engineer send an initial sketch and information to Applicant regarding the truck conversion / Applicant proceeded with conversion of the truck based on initial information from Respondent’s engineer which was not complete or final / Applicant claims invoices for $13,827.15 rendered for services have not been paid / Applicant claims work was not carried out in accordance with the engineer’s instructions and it has incurred cost to rectify and complete work / Held: Applicant breached contract by not following the engineer’s instructions and measurements to carry out the work / Held: breach entitled Respondent to cancel the contract / Held: Applicant entitled to be paid for work performed prior to cancellation of contract / Respondent ordered to pay $6,187.15 to Applicant.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Fair Trading Act 1986 /  Applicant purchased a tour of North America from Respondent / Cost of tour was $21,523.70 / Applicant advised tour would not go ahead due to Covid pandemic / Respondent offered Applicant two partial refunds which were rejected / Applicant claimed full tour price from Respondent / Whether clauses in the contract intended to have effect in a worldwide pandemic / Whether expenses were incurred by Respondent when performing the contract / Whether Respondent misled or deceived the Applicant / Held: no cancellation or alteration contract terms which were intended to have effect in circumstances of a worldwide pandemic / There was an insurance agreement term which was intended to have effect in these circumstances / Applicant was able to recover cost of the tour less amount of Respondent’s expenses / Respondent did not mislead or deceive Applicant / Claim allowed / Respondent to pay Applicant $19,523.70.

Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased a car from Respondent / Car advertised as reliable and running well / Car overheated from day of sale / Applicant advised engine would need to be replaced / Applicant sought a refund of the $10,000.00 purchase price from Respondent / Whether misrepresentation made in sale of vehicle / Whether Applicant was entitled to sum claimed / Held: Overheating problem arose day of purchase / More likely than not there was latent defect in the car / Statements that car was reliable, mechanically sound and went well were untrue statements / Did not matter that statements were made on behalf of a party to a contract / An innocent misrepresentation is still a misrepresentation / Costs not proven / Damages are limited to cost of replacement engine / Respondent ordered to pay $7,100.00 to Applicant by specified date / Claim allowed.

Contract / Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 / Applicant provided quote of $16,204.00 to Respondent for painting her house / Applicant’s quote was accepted by the Respondent / Respondent paid Applicant $4,000.00 for the contracted painting work / Applicant seeks an order for the balance owing to him / Respondent claims quote is excessive, unfair and unreasonable / Held: contract price of $16,204.00 is unconscionable / Held: Tribunal has power to vary contract in this situation / Held: twice the average price is the extent of the respondent’s liability to the applicant / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay $5,500.00 to the Applicant.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1983 / Applicant enquired with Respondents about installation of hair extensions / Respondents provided Applicant with time estimate for installation and outcome / Applicant paid Respondents $650.00 to have hair extensions attached / Applicant claimed extensions were not properly installed and took longer than indicated by Respondents / Applicant claims $1,999.00 for reinstallation, travel and damages for a burn to her scalp, loss of hair and embarrassment / Breach of reasonable care and skill in failing to properly outline time for service and possibility would not work well / Other damages were not established / Claim allowed in part / Second Respondent to pay Applicant $650.00 / Claim against First Respondent dismissed

Contract / Respondent signed authorisation for Applicant to act as her employment consultant in relation to dispute with her former employer / No written contract between parties / Oral agreement that payment for services would be on a “no win, no fee basis” / Dispute was referred to mediation by the ERA / What was agreed as the scope of work of the contract / What was the meaning of “no win, no fee” / Was there a win in the circumstances where Respondent indicated that she would pursue an offer of settlement but chose to turn it down / Held: authorisation described the work to be done generally / Nothing was recorded in the circumstances about particular instructions or goals / Not clear anything was agreed concerning the purpose of the services / Proposed that the meaning of a “win” was a “satisfactory result” / Both parties were happy to consider that meaning of “win” / Meaning of “No win, no fee” is straightforward / In the absence of a satisfactory result no fee is charged  / Insu…