Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant bought a drone from Respondent / After purchase the drone hit a tree and fell into water / The drone is not economic to repair / Applicant seeks a refund plus costs incurred / Respondent claims no fault with product / Respondent also claims Applicant failed to read manual/guides and as a result put drone into an inappropriate flight environment / Held: Respondent cannot be liable for failure of the drone to be of acceptable quality per s 17 of the Consumer Guarantees Act if information on drone manufacturer’s website gave unreasonable expectations of functionality / Held: it was not established by Applicant that Respondent advertised the extent of the drone’s particular flight functions, intended use or functionality / Claim dismissed

Contract / Implied terms / Breach / Damages / Respondent contacted Applicant to repair truck and complete COF check / Truck failed COF and Applicant prepared quote for necessary repairs / Respondent delayed making decision on repairs and became difficult to contact / Applicant emailed Respondent advising it would start charging parking/storage fee / Respondent did not reply / Applicant claims $10,000 from Respondent for repairs, COF, labour and storage / Held: there was an implied term that Respondent would make decision regarding repairs within reasonable time and would remove truck if required by Applicant / Held: Respondent is liable for full sum claimed / Respondent breached implied term of contract / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay $10,000 to Applicant

The Building Act 2004 / Applicant engaged Respondent as building contract to construct a new house / Residential building contract between parties outlined specifications for a cream, smooth polished concrete floor / The floor that resulted was grey with significant aggregate showing / Applicant claims damages to tile floor / Respondent claims Applicant agreed to variation in specification for the floor / Held: Respondent’s proposal to grind the floor was not an agreed variation to the contract / Proposal was an attempt at rectification of a breach of implied warranty /  Held: Respondent has not proven exclusion to liability for breach of s 362I(1)(a)(ii) of the Building Act 2004 / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay $15,196.35 to Applicant

The Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Misrepresentation / Applicant purchased a horsefloat from the Respondents for $5,300.00 / Applicant subsequently discovered horsefloat has safety and maintenance issues / Applicant claims compensation of $4,999.00 / Respondent claims no knowledge of safety issues as an engineer advised horsefloat was sound and a mechanic warranted it prior to sale / Held: the float was misrepresented in the ad / Held: defects were present at time of sale / Held: Applicant’s right is only a damages, not a refund as the float is classed as “goods” / Held: the repair cost plus consequential losses represent the direct and foreseeable losses arising from representations in the ad / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4,139.89

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant damaged his vehicle / Respondent agreed to do repair work in 2017 / Respondent asked for $6,000 in advance to cover the costs / In 2020 the work had not been completed / Applicant claimed that the repairs had taken too long and he had suffered loss as a result / Whether there had been any guarantee breaches / Whether the Applicant was entitled to compensation / Held: Respondent had an obligation to complete the work within a reasonable time / Applicant gave the Respondent opportunities to complete the work / Respondent failed to complete work / Respondent required to do no further work on the vehicle and return it / Applicant to pay Respondent $1,500 / Claim allowed

Negligence / Vicarious liability / First Respondent engaged Second Respondent to prune tree on property / Second Respondent mistakenly pruned tree on Applicants’ property / Applicants’ claim compensation for losses suffered as a result of Second Respondent’s mistake / Held: Second Respondent’s carelessness amounts to negligence / Second Respondent liable to pay Applicants’ reasonably foreseeable losses resulting from negligence / First Respondent is not vicariously liable for Second Respondent’s negligent actions / Relationship contractual not employer/employee / Held: reasonable losses limited to cost of remedial pruning / Claim allowed / Second Respondent ordered to pay $1000 to Applicant  

Contract for service / Respondent agreed to erect a boundary fence / Applicant paid $2,300.00 being half the quoted sum / Respondent erected fence in unsatisfactory manner / No written contract but agreement not followed / Fence built by Respondent rather than company that produced the quote / Palings put on Applicant’s side without consent / Fence not completed / Held: Applicant entitled to a partial refund of $950.96 for his contribution to the fence.

Contract / Second Applicant gave $200,000 loan to Respondents to purchase house / All three applicants provided Respondent with further money for renovation of house / Applicants claim AUS$18,072.93 / Whether parties agreed to full and final settlement / Whether payment to be in Australian or New Zealand Dollars / Held: full and final settlement that Respondents pay $300,000 regardless of renovation debt / Parties confirm they had a discussion agreeing to pay $300,000 which Bank letter confirms / Held: payment was to be in Australian Dollars / Email from Second Applicant questioning whether plan was to transfer $300,000 Australian / Email could not mean Respondent was to pay equivalent amount in NZD / Conversion rate on the day leaves $12,210 to pay / Discretional interest awarded / Claim allowed, Respondent to pay $14,105.05 in proportions set out in Order

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased kitset wood fired hot tub from Respondent / Applicant unable to assemble it / Applicant engaged another party to assemble it but it leaked / Respondent argued Applicant allowed the wooden components to get wet and that was why it leaked / Whether tub was of acceptable quality and fit for purpose / What remedy was available to the Applicant / Held: tub was not of acceptable quality and not fit for purpose / Assembly instructions were poor / No warning on instructions about wood getting damp / Applicant entitled to consequential losses as a result of failure of the tub/ Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4,148.00

Negligence / Applicant was making a right turn when a collision occurred with a motorcycle being ridden by Respondent / Respondent was travelling along the flush median strip passing on the right of stationary traffic intending to rejoin once he was closer to a roundabout  / Applicant’s car was damaged as a result of the collision / Applicant claims $2,563.74 representing the loss of repairing his car / Held: Respondent caused the collision to occur and was therefore negligent / Applicant did not cause or contribute to the collision / Respondent is liable to pay the amount claimed / Claim allowed / Counter claim dismissed, Respondent to pay $2,563.74 to Applicant  

Contract / Respondents advised Applicant insurance company that a vehicle belonging to them had been stolen / Vehicle not recovered / Applicant paid out claim of $9570.15, met cost of rental car / Vehicle located at Respondents' property / Applicant claims $11,185.10 for amount paid out under claim, and costs of rental vehicle, towing, investigation / Held: claim for loss of vehicle fraudulent / Claim allowed, Respondents to pay Applicant $11,185.10

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased an advertised Rolex Submariner watch through Respondent / Watch sent to Rolex Australia for service and found to be non-genuine / Respondent purchased the watch from the original seller believing at the time of sale the watch was genuine /  Applicant claims refund of $14, 350.00 for the purchase price of watch from Respondent as had no contract with the original seller / Held: Relief granted under s28 of CCLA and dealt with as a contractual mistake / Held: Applicant entitled to refund / Respondent to pay Applicant sum of $14,350.00 / Watch to be returned by Applicant to Respondent / Costs incurred in the return of the watch to be covered by Applicant

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act (CGA) 1993 / Applicant purchased sofa bed from Respondent / estimated delivery date January 2019 / delays in supply / Applicant cancelled contract and requested refund 11 July 2019 / Respondent delivered sofa bed 16 July 2019 / Respondent refused Applicant’s request to remove sofa / Applicant organised for sofa to be donated to Salvation Army / Applicant claims they were entitled to cancel contract and receive $999.00 refund / Applicant claims they were entitled to dispose of sofa / Held: Applicant entitled to cancel contract / s 5A CGA requires consumer receives goods in reasonable time / Held: Applicant not entitled to dispose of sofa / immediate disposal does not constitute reasonable care of goods / claim dismissed.