Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Applicant supplied and maintained doors to a supermarket / Contract was originally with one company then interest transferred to Respondent / Contract ended and doors were removed by Applicant per contract / Costs for removal of doors in dispute / Applicant claimed Respondent responsible for costs of removal of doors under contract / Respondent claimed no proof of terms regarding removal in contract / Held: contract required Respondent to pay for removal of doors only where contract terminated due to breach by Respondent / Removal costs not recoverable as contract came to end when fixed term ended / Claim dismissed

Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicants purchased a used car from the Respondents for $1800.00 / Respondents made misleading statements about condition of car in Facebook ad / Car could not obtain Warrant of Fitness without significant structural work / Estimated wreck value of car is $350.00 / Applicants claim a refund of the purchase price of the car / Respondents claim the car was sold “as is where is” / Held: Respondents misrepresented the car / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 provides some protection for purchasers of goods in private sales / Applicants have suffered a loss / Claim allowed, Respondents ordered to pay Applicants $1450.00.

Contract / Context of sublease between Applicant and Respondent / Applicant was head lessee of shopping centre which included a shop leased by Respondent / Applicant claims for shortfall in rent payments, cleaning costs and electricity charges / Applicant’s total claim amounts to $28,473.74 / Respondent counterclaims for a rent refund and cost of the air-conditioning unit and water cylinder / Respondent’s counterclaim amounts to $16,009.67 / Held: Amount of rent owed by Respondent was $952.78 / Respondent must pay $2,817.50 for remedial costs / Respondent fails in claim relating to air-conditioning unit and water cylinder / Claim allowed, Respondent to pay Applicant $3,770.28

Contract / Quasi-contract / Respondent engaged to work on property occupied by Applicant / Respondent asked Applicant if it could take water from their property / Applicant consented / Applicant asked Respondent to spray land to get rid of gorse / Respondent agreed / Respondent sent invoice to Applicant of $552 / Applicant said it was under no obligation to pay as spraying was in exchange for water / Applicant sent invoice for use of water / Applicant claimed not required to pay invoice from Respondent and sought declaration of non-liability / Held: no contract was formed / A person cannot accept an offer they do not know about / Unique circumstances and benefit received by Applicant meant an amount should be paid / Some compensation for costs of doing job was reasonable / Requiring a payment of $300 was fair in the circumstances / Applicant ordered to pay $300 to Respondent / claim dismissed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant contracted with Respondent to hold their wedding at Respondent’s wedding venue / Applicant paid Respondent a deposit of $1,500.00 and a further $5000.00 / Contract was frustrated by the Level-4 COVID-19 lockdown announcement on 23 March 2020 / Applicant claims a full refund of $6,500.00, Respondent seeks to off-set payments made against overhead expenses of $7054.74 / Held: s 61 of the CCLA provides for the Applicant to be refunded as the starting point / Respondent retains some of the payments as there was an intangible benefit to the Applicants in incurring overhead expense costs / Claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay $5039.27

Contract / Property / Applicants claimed $4063.74 for balance of rental they argued was owing at Covid-19 Level 3 as well as valuation and legal costs / Whether Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear claim / Whether there was a settlement as to rent to be paid / Whether the Trust could recover valuation and legal costs / Held: dispute over settlement meant Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the claim / there was settlement as to the rent / Therefore the Applicants cannot recover for the balance of the rent / Reduction of rent during Covid-19 not an enforcement matter / Applicants cannot recover the valuation and legal costs / claim dismissed.

Quasi-contract / Applicant paid the sum of $3,580.00 to a friend for him to hold on her behalf / Account to which money was transferred was joint account with Respondent / Respondent claimed she thought money was wage subsidy payment and transferred it to her account / Respondent subsequently returned $1,900.00 to friend and used remainder of money to pay off credit card / Applicant seeks payment of the balance of $1,680.00 / Tribunal has jurisdiction in quasi-contract despite no contractual obligation between parties or no physical damage to property / Quasi-contract arises when one party said to be unjustly enriched at the expense of another and is required as if there was a contract to make restitution to injured party / Held: Respondent liable to return money / Held: when Respondent transferred funds to her account she knew they belonged to Applicant therefore Respondent cannot claim funds received and used in good faith / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,680.…

Contract / Applicant contract with Respondent to undertake building work / Applicant went into liquidation / Director of Applicant continued building work as sole trader / Director invoiced Respondent for work done pre-dating liquidation / Respondent paid Director for that work / Applicant claims payment should have been made for that work direct to Applicant / Respondent claimed costs of the proceedings / Held: contract was between Applicant and Respondent / Held: payment to Director did not amount to payment to Applicant for amount owed / Applicant entitled to payment but it is reasonable to share responsibility of payment / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay $800.00 to Applicant / Counter claim not allowed / Respondent not entitled to costs

Trespass / Applicants were trustees occupying land within city boundary / Applicants cropped part of the land with lucerne / Stock owned by Second Respondent on adjoining paddock accessed the paddock growing lucerne / Applicants sought damages / Whether the stock was owned by the Second Respondent / Whether the land was situated within the city boundary / If not, whether the fence was adequate / Whether the costs claimed reasonable / Held: Accepted that the stock was owned by the Second Respondent / All parties agreed the land was within the city boundary / Trust entitled to demand damages from the Second Respondent / Damages related to unharvested lucerne / Trust did not mitigate its loss by harvesting promptly after the stock trespass / Parties agreed $135.00 was fair amount for a bale of lucerne / Second Respondent ordered to pay Applicants $8505.00 for 63 bales by specified date / claim allowed.

Contract / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Building Act 2004 / Building Regulations 1992 / Housing Improvements Regulations 1947 / Applicant rented three-bedroom apartment managed by Respondent for one week at cost of $3,030.00 / Applicant discovered one bedroom had no window / Applicant and friend found this unpleasant and slept on the couch for the last three nights / Applicant claimed $1,010.00 from Respondent as compensation / Held: Respondent did not mislead or deceive Applicant when advertising the apartment as having three bedrooms / The bedroom was not required to have a window in order to comply with applicable legislation /Respondent not liable to pay amount claimed by Applicant / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Breach / Applicant owns interior panting business / Respondent contracted Applicant to complete painting work / Applicant did not receive payment on second invoice for completed work / Applicant claims for unpaid invoice / Respondent counter-claims work completed not to professional standards and they were required to remedy Applicant’s work / Held: Respondents in breach of conditions for non-payment of second invoice / Held: Applicant did not complete work to reasonable skill and care, failure of a substantial character / Claim and counter-claim allowed/ Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2160.87

Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / four vehicles involved in nose-to-tail accident / stationary queue had formed / Driver A stopped, was hit from behind by Driver B who was hit from behind by Driver C who was hit from behind by Driver D / liability for compensation for damage disputed / Driver A claimed $2,000 from Driver B / Held: duty to stop short even if driver in front stopped suddenly / Held: Driver B failed to stop short of Driver A / Driver A heard two hits, when Driver B hit and when Driver C hit Driver B / Held: Driver C failed to stop short of Driver B / Driver B's car extensively damaged at rear and written off / Held: each driver who hit another liable for damage they did / difficult to determine damage Driver B did to Driver A / insufficient evidence that Driver D caused additional harm to Driver A / damage to Driver A apportioned on 50/50 basis between Drivers B and C / Driver C liable to pay for damage to Driver B / Insurer to pay Driver A $1,000 / Driver C to pay D…

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant booked Respondent for her services as a make-up artist for a wedding photoshoot / Applicant paid a deposit of $225 and booked airline tickets and accommodation / Respondent chose not to undertake the job because of concerns around COVID-19 / Respondent refunded deposit / Applicant claimed refund for booked flights, accommodation and filing fee / Whether Respondent breached the contract by not travelling for the job or whether contract frustrated by events / If the Respondent breached the contract what losses did Applicant suffer /  Whether Respondent was entitled to flight amount and accommodation / Whether Respondent entitled to filing fee / Held: not satisfied contract was frustrated / contract not impossible to perform as Applicant secured services of another make-up artist for the shoot / Respondent failing to perform contract was a breach of the contract / Applicant suffered loss of costs of flights booked for Respondent …