Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Reasonable care and skill / Breach / Second respondent contracted with Applicant to repair hot water cylinder / Applicant claims payment on account / Respondents claim the cylinder lost heat three months after repairs after Applicant had attended property regarding payment / Respondents discovered issue with cylinder due to missing fuse / Whether it is more likely than not the Applicant removed the fuse; if so, how much is payable for work done / Held: Applicant most likely took out fuse / Held: Applicant not able to recover own charges but fees for work of third-party just and practicable to be paid / Claim allowed / Respondents ordered to pay $189.03 to Applicant

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants bought a kitset garage / Respondent had undertaken garage installation / Various issues arose from installation / Applicants did not wish to pay final $5,000 to Respondent / Respondent pursued payment / Applicants claimed $30,000 in damages / Respondent counterclaimed for final account plus additional costs amounting to $10,000 / Both parties have claimed for compensation for any sum payable / Held: garage was consented to despite errors in the installation / Compensation payable by Respondent was offset by amount still owed by Applicants / Neither party owed the other any sum / Claim and counterclaim granted.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicants booked Respondent as photographer for their wedding / Applicant's wedding postponed because of COVID / Respondent refused to be vaccinated and suggested to proceed as planned or his contract to be either transferred to a vaccinated photographer or be cancelled with a 50% refund of paid amount / Respondent suggested to record the event using Google satellites / Applicants claim for full refund on the basis that proposed service is not reasonably fit for purpose under the CGA / Held: Applicants entitled to cancel contract as services provided by Respondent not fit for purpose / Applicant can obtain any loss or damage resulting from failure that was reasonably foreseeable / Respondent ordered to pay Applicants $599.00 on or before 8 March 2022 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant and her partner entered into contracts with Respondent to provide a variety of wedding services /  Contracts related to planning and styling of the wedding, floral styling and venue hire / Applicant and her partner live in Australia / Due to travel restrictions relating to Covid-19 the parties agreed to postpone the wedding  / Later the Applicant and her partner advised they wished to cancel their booking / Correspondence ensued between the parties regarding refunds / Applicant received a partial refund from Respondent / Applicant sought an order for $3,312.70, the deposit amount for floral and venue hire contracts / Whether the contract was frustrated / If yes, whether the Applicant was entitled to a refund of $3,312,70 / If not, whether the Respondent was entitled to retain deposits paid / Held: contract was not frustrated / Contract was cancelled because Applicant and her partner made a decision not to take the risk of cont…

Tort / Detinue / Applicant booked Polaris Ranger into Respondents’ workshop / Respondent refused to return the ranger until Applicant paid outstanding invoice for a different Polaris / The vehicle was returned, after Applicant filed an initial Disputes Tribunal claim / Applicant seeks damages to cover the cost of hiring an alternative vehicle while Polaris was detained / Held: It was unlawful for Respondent to withhold the Polaris / The first and third Respondent must pay the Applicant $1,100.00 for hiring costs / The claim against the second respondent is dismissed. Claim: partially upheld.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant entered into contract with Respondent for supply and assembly of flat pack cabin / Respondent to pay deposit of 30% on ordering and 70% upon dispatch / Respondent only paid deposit / Applicant removed doors and windows as Respondent had not paid remaining 70% after completion of assembly / Respondent installed alternative joinery at their expense for weatherproofing purposes / Applicant claimed remainder of payment being $6849 / Respondent counter-claimed $12,927.07 for manufacture and installation of joinery by third party and various remedial costs / Held: Contract stated payment was due “upon dispatch” / Contract did not contain any lien clauses / Respondent was liable to pay Applicant remaining 70% / Applicant had no right to remove any part of cabin from Respondent’s property once assembled / Respondent had right to hire third party to install joinery / Cabin not fit for purpose and not of acceptable quality / Respondent no…

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant contracted Respondent to refurbish deck / Applicant accepted initial quote and paid deposit / Respondent informed Applicant that some timber would have to be replaced resulting in additional cost / Applicant rejected updated quote / Applicant claimed punitive damages and refund of deposit less than time spent on initial work / Respondent counterclaimed for damages for reputation / Held: Respondent showed reasonable care and skill by declining to do work non-compliant with the Building Code / Contract had implied term that variation was required when defects affecting cost cannot be ascertained during inspection / Applicant's refusal to proceed under the new quote amounted to contract repudiation / Respondent entitled to cancel the contract and claim relief / Deposit covered work undertaken by Respondent therefore non-refundable / Disputes Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear reputational damage c…

Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Carriage of goods / Applicant purchased products from overseas company / Second respondent shipped goods in container / Container arrived at depot run by Third respondent / Third respondent unpacked container and repacked one falling over pallet / Once received applicant discovered damage to boxes / Applicant claims $3,680.73 as cost of unsaleable items / Respondent claims goods were damaged before it picked them up / Were goods damaged during contract of carriage by respondent / Held: yes / Photos taken by second respondent do not show damage / No damage noted when pallet repacked / Shrink wrap missing and damage consistent with forklift damage / Was contract at limited carrier’s risk / Held: yes / Parties did not sign any contract prior to collection / Is liability limited to $2,000 for all damage / Held: yes / Damaged goods were all on one pallet / Contracting carrier can only be liable for S2,000 per unit of goods / Unit is whole pallet / Clai…

Torts / Contract / Duty of care / Negligence / Liability for damages / Applicant acquired the services of the Respondent to fix the airbag light issue in his car / New Zealand went into lockdown and the Applicant's car was left in the Respondent's premises / Respondent secured the car but the building was burgled and the Applicant's car was damaged / Applicant claims for the Respondent to pay for the car damages / Held: Respondent did what was reasonable in the circumstances to take care of their customer's cars / Respondent had an express term that excludes liability and is not liable for any damage to vehicle under contract / No breach of duty of care and contract / Applicant is not entitled to claim $10,000 / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a laptop from the Respondent for $2,119.00 / After four years, Applicant began to have issues with the laptop screen display / Respondent advised it would cost the Applicant $1,239.70 to repair the issue / Applicant claimed the laptop was not of acceptable quality and was not fit for purpose / Applicant sought a refund of the purchase price of $2,119.00 / Whether the laptop was of reasonable quality / Whether the laptop was fit for purpose / If not, what remedy was available to the Applicant / Held: evidence suggested laptop was of acceptable quality and was fit for purpose / Reasonable for a laptop to require repairs after four years / No remedy available to the Applicant / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a $899 outdoor sofa set from the Respondent /  Months later Applicant advised the Respondent that the screws had rusted and one of the seats was cracking / Respondent arranged to collect the furniture, but failed to do so / Respondent did not respond to further contact attempts by the Respondent / Applicant claimed full refund of $899 / Whether the furniture was of acceptable quality / Whether the Applicant was entitled to reject the furniture / Held: outdoor furniture must be suitable for sustained outdoor use / Furniture was not as durable and fit for purpose as a reasonable consumer would have expected / Fault was of substantial character / Applicant was entitled to reject the furniture and receive a full refund/ Respondent was obliged to collect the furniture at its own expense / Respondent ordered to pay $899 to the Applicant / Claim granted.

Contract / Applicant took out vehicle insurance with Respondent / Applicant made insurance claim for stolen vehicle / Respondent discovered Applicant’s criminal history while processing claim, including dishonesty offences / Respondent declined insurance claim based on non-disclosure of criminal history / Applicant seeks to set aside decision to decline insurance claim / Held: Applicant responsible for disclosing criminal history and insuring forms filled out accurately / Held: Applicant did not provide Tribunal with new evidence to enable Tribunal to come to different conclusion to insurance & Financial Services Ombudsman / Held: any premiums paid have already been offset by previous claim / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicants purchased a rental property with a continuing tenancy in place / Property was sold and Respondent (as property manager) was contracted to give the tenant notice to vacate the property / Tenant did not receive notice and did not vacate the property / Applicants were financially penalised and incurred various costs to have the tenant evicted / Applicants claimed Respondent breached its contractual obligations / Applicants claimed $23,355.50 for resulting losses / Held: Respondent's silence to the Applicants' request for updates did not amount to a breach of contract / Respondent made all reasonable steps that a property manager should make in the circumstances / Losses were caused by the tenant's actions / Respondent did not breach its contractual obligations to the Applicants / No damages were payable / Claim dismissed.