Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Negligence / Applicant hired a trailer from the Respondent / Respondent's employee helped Applicant attach the trailer to his car / Employee pushed the trailer into Applicant's car causing damage / Applicant claimed for damages of $1,307.38 for repairs / Held: Respondent's employee owed Applicant duty of care / Respondent vicariously liable as negligent act was in the course of normal business and in the scope of his or her employment / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,307.38 / Claim granted.

Contract / Parties were flatmates / Respondent was head tenant / Parties signed renting agreement / Applicant had physical altercation with Respondent’s partner / Respondent was not willing to allow Applicant to return to property / Applicant obtained the intervention of the Police who obliged Respondent to return Applicant’s possessions / Applicant did not remove his possessions from his room until a month later /  To pay rent while room was unable to be let to someone else Respondent kept Applicant’s bond of $570.00 / Applicant claimed for return of bond payment subject to renting agreement / Whether either party breached contract / If so, what if any damages or compensation was payable / Held: Applicant not entitled to refund of his bond because it was used to pay for unpaid rent / If the Applicant had taken his possessions away earlier then the bond would almost certainly have been refundable / Applicant’s personal circumstances did not make any difference to his obligation to pay …

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent completed building report for Applicant / Applicant claimed they relied on report for  conditional purchase of property / Applicant subsequently discovered issues with property not identified in the report / Applicant claimed $20,000 from Respondent for repair expenses / Respondent denied liability / Respondent claimed he completed a visual and non-invasive inspection and reported on relevant matters / Held: Respondent did not fail to take reasonable care and skill / Respondent did not fail to provide services which are fit for purpose / Applicant not entitled to any remedy / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Building Act 2004 / Applicant entered contract with Respondent to purchase house and land package / Shortly after settlement Respondent noticed cracks appearing on front path and driveway  / The cracks expanded / Respondent assured Applicant this was normal, recommended applying glue to the cracks / Applicant engaged specialist assessment / Applicant claims $4312.50 for remedial repairs and $90.00 for the Tribunal filing fee / Held: Respondent is in breach of sections 362I and 362Q of the Act / Respondent liable to pay claimed remedial costs / Claim allowed, Respondent to pay Applicant $4312.50. Tribunal fee not able to be awarded.

Nuisance / Respondent installed a sump on Applicant’s neighbouring property using a large digger / Applicant claims the digger caused significant vibrations that shook her house and caused cracking / Applicant claims for repairs for the damage / Held: not proven that the damage was caused by the Respondent / No evidence prevented to suggest damage caused by Respondent / Claim dismissed

Contract / Applicants purchased house from Respondents / Respondents carried out pre-purchase inspection / Applicants removed carpet and found floor boards were wet / Water damage caused by long-standing failure of waterproof membrane to tiled shower tray / Applicants' claim Respondents breached terms of the sale and purchase agreement and failed to carry out inspection services with reasonable care and skill / Applicants seek repair costs / Held: no basis on which to hold Respondents liable for repair costs / Not sufficiently proven Respondents missed vital indicators / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Respondent hired two scooters from the Applicant / Applicant alleged the scooters were thrown into the water / Applicant claimed the cost of the scooters plus loss of revenue totalling $3,141,62 / Held: sufficient evidence to establish the Respondent was responsible for the hiring and destruction of the scooters / Respondent was therefore responsible for any damage and resultant loss under the contract / Respondent ordered to pay $3,141,62 to the Applicant / Claim granted.

Contract / Respondent engaged Applicant to edit series of training videos / Respondent gave notice that no further editing work would be required after Applicant produced eight videos due to COVID-related changes / Applicant claimed $4,400.00 being the full contract price / Whether terms of contract allowed for variation in price or scope / Whether Respondent’s notice constituted repudiation of contract / Held: terms of contract did not allow for variation in price and scope / Notice constituted repudiation contract / Respondent to pay Applicant $2965.22 being $1530.43 for work done plus $1443.79 for 50% of remaining balance of contract price as general damages / Claim granted.

Contract / Applicant was looking for a car to drive as an uber / Applicant agreed to buy a car from the Respondent / Respondent accepted the offer and the Applicant paid a deposit of $1,000.00 / Afterwards, Applicant was advised that it was not an ideal car for an uber / Applicant cancelled the contract and requested a refund / Respondent declined to give a refund / Whether the contract was conditional / Whether the Applicant was entitled to a refund / Held: contract can be varied by agreement but not unilaterally after it has been formed / Contract was not varied to become conditional on an inspection or opinion / Deposit not generally refundable if a purchaser changes their mind / No evidence of significant issues with the car / Applicant was not entitled to a refund / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant entered into an agreement to purchase a property including chattels from the Respondent / Applicants agent raised issues following pre-settlement inspection regarding missing furniture, cleanliness and furniture swapped with inferior quality items / No agreement was reached prior to settlement / Applicants claim $20,390.00 for replacement and removal of furniture, cleaning and travel costs, and loss of rental income / Held: The Respondents breached the agreement by not leaving two side tables at the property and failing to remove stickers and decorative mirrors / The respondents did not breach of the vendor warranties for chattel / Applicants are not entitled to compensation for loss of rental income / Respondents to pay Applicants $600.00 / claim: upheld.

Trade practices / Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) / First Respondent was promoting “gifting programme” which Applicant attended / At meeting First Respondent told attendees for every $1,000.00 paid into programme they would receive $3,000.00 back / Applicant paid $10,000.00 to First Respondent initially / Later Applicant paid further $8,000.00 / After Applicant made payments she discovered programme appeared to be pyramid scheme / Respondents have since repaid $8,000.00 to Applicant / Dispute over how much Applicant paid to First Respondent / Applicant claimed further $20,00.00 / How much did Applicant pay to First Respondent / Was “gifting programme” promoted by First Respondent to Applicant pyramid selling scheme / What remedy, if any, was available to Applicant / Held: conflicting evidence on how much Applicant paid to First Respondent / Found Applicant only proven $18,000.00 was paid to First Respondent / Scheme fits description of pyramid-selling scheme under FTA / Applicant’s loss wa…

Contract / Applicant purchased a house from the Respondent / During the due diligence period, the Respondent indicated that one of the toilet seats had a crack in it / Respondent offered to replace the toilet seat / Applicant said he would find a replaced one / Fifteen months later, Applicant contacted the Respondent stating that he had a new toilet seat installed for $483.05 / Respondent disputed she was liable to pay / What was the offer that the Respondent made to the Applicant / Whether the Applicant accepted the offer within a reasonable time / If so, whether the Applicant was entitled to the costs of the new toilet seat and the cost to install it / Held: Applicant did not expressly promise to pay for the cost to install the seat / Discussion was about the price of the toilet seat only / Offer to pay for the toilet seat remained open for a reasonable time / Offer had expired and was no longer available for acceptance / Respondent was not contractually obligated to pay for the cost…