Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Conversion / Negligence / Courier company delivered a package for the Applicant to her neighbour, the Respondent / Applicant was out of town for a few weeks at the time of delivery / Package required signature for delivery / Documents from the courier company indicated the Applicant’s initials were entered on to the delivery document / When the Applicant returned she made multiple unsuccessful attempts to make contact with the Respondent regarding the package / Matter escalated to the point that a police officer became involved / Evidence from the police officer indicated that the Respondent’s partner received the package and the Respondent placed it at the front of his property / Applicant claimed in conversion for the value of the lost goods, being $424.00 / Is it established that the Respondent had possession of the Applicant’s package at some point / Was the Respondent liable in negligence for converting the goods / What remedy was available to the Applicant / Held: on the balance …

Contract / Applicant and Respondent in a de facto relationship / Applicant paid $87 for Respondent’s daughter’s holiday care / Applicant later took out a loan of 18,000.00 to put on the Respondent’s credit card / Month later Respondent ended the relationship / Applicant asked the Respondent to repay the $18,087.00 stating it was not a gift / Respondent disputed it was a loan to be paid back or that there were any discussions regarding repayments / Respondent gave evidence he had provided for the Applicant and her children financially during the relationship / Parties unable to reach a resolution / Applicant claimed $18,087.00 against the Respondent for repayment of the loan and his daughter’s holiday care / Whether there was an enforceable contract between the parties / If so, whether the Applicant was entitled to claimed $18,087.00 / Held: both parties contributed to the financial running of their household while they were in a relationship / No written agreement or evidence of discus…

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act / Applicants bought travel insurance / Applicants decided to cancel trip on advice of doctors / Applicant claimed for non-refundable portion of trip / Respondent declined claim because of a pre-existing medical condition that had not been declared / Held: Respondent incorrectly applied the definition of a pre-existing claim / Applicant was not aware and could not have been aware she had the medical condition / Had not been investigated or treated for the condition prior to the policy purchase / Applicants entitled to $25,261.40 under the insurance policy / Applicants entitled to $2,000.00 for breaches under the Consumer Guarantees Act and ongoing stress and inconvenience / Respondent did not deal with claim with reasonable care and skill and did not deal with it within a reasonable time / Applicants entitled to refund of the cost of the services of $1,092.00 / Respondent to pay Applicants $28,353.40 in total

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant bought two house plants from the Respondent / Plants did not survive / Applicant claimed a refund of  purchase price/ Applicant argued plants were neither of acceptable quality nor fit for purpose / Whether Applicant proved on the balance of probabilities that the plants he purchased were defective when he purchased them from the Respondent / Held: necessary prove is lacking / Not possible to say that plants would have died because they were not of acceptable quality or were unfit for purpose / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant entered insurance contract with Respondent / Applicant suffered damage to contents caused by dogs / Applicant claimed $3,512.00 for damaged contents / Did losses occur within term of insurance period / If so, did Respondent breach contract by treating each loss as separate events requiring excess deductions / If so, what is remedy / Held: damage likely occurred during insurance period / Respondent breached contract / Likely damage to contents arose from one source or original cause / One excess should have been charged for damage to contents / Respondent to pay Applicant $2,962.00 / Claim granted. 

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant purchased washing machine from First Respondent / Washing machine broke down within short period / Applicant approached First Respondent who put them in contact with Second Respondent / Second Respondent took away washing machine and refunded some of purchase price / Refund delayed for some time / Applicant was without a washing machine and had to make numerous trips to laundrette / During Covid-19 restrictions Applicant was unable to access laundrette / Applicant went to First Respondent numerous times for resolution / Applicant claimed breach of guarantee of acceptable quality under CGA / Applicant claimed damages for refund or replacement, consequential financial losses and consequential losses in form of emotional harm / Applicant claimed $30,000 to be paid equally by the Respondents / Held: breach of guarantee of acceptable quality / First Respondent to pay Applicant $119.00 refund / Emotional harm damages cannot be claimed…

Contract / Applicant supplied pate jars to Respondent for food packaging / Supply was subject to terms and conditions in credit application signed by Applicant in 2015 / Method of supply was via blanket order for fixed period / Previously, Respondent’s account manager had contacted Applicant when new blanket order was required / In November 2019, blanket order form signed by Applicant for around five pallets which lasted until March 2021 / Respondent did not notify Applicant that current blanket order was expired or that there was no more stock / In August 2021, Applicant placed new purchase order but was advised there was no more stock on hand / Respondent was only able to get further supply for substantially larger order / No other buyers for product and Respondent not prepared to purchase and hold such a large quantity for one customer / Applicant could not source jar elsewhere and had to change to different product requiring different labels and equipment / Applicant claimed $10,66…

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicants hired Respondent to replace their roof / Respondent started work but failed to turn up subsequently / A roofing expert was engaged to look at the work / Work found to be defective / Applicants sought full refund of money paid to Respondent / Held: Respondent breached obligations under CGA and did not carry out work to acceptable industry standards / Roofing was not fit for purpose / Respondent had been given reasonable opportunity to remedy / Applicants entitled to full refund of $17,160 / Claim granted.

Contract / Applicant booked stay at Airbnb property owned and operated by Respondent / New Zealand entered level 4 Covid-19 lockdown shortly after arrival at property / Applicant and family returned home early / Applicant seeks refund of $581.00 (of total $1,013.00) because he did not receive full benefit of contract with Respondent / Respondent claims the strict no-refund policy applies / What terms were agreed? / Was the contract frustrated? / Is Applicant entitled to $581.00 as claimed, or any other sum? / Held: both parties aware of key terms of contract including strict 3-night minimum booking policy, no refund policy and statement that Covid-19 affected bookings no longer covered under “extenuating circumstances” policy / Held: contract not frustrated / contract already contained terms dealing with Covid-19 restrictions and how it might affect contract / Held: Applicant not entitled to refund of $581.00 or any other sum / Claim dismissed.

Applicant awarded $9,169.84 in previous Tribunal decision / Applicant’s application in previous hearing allowed for set-off of $1,315.99 for title search fees / previous decision did not specifically address set-off / Respondent, without prior notice to Applicant, issued statutory demand on Applicant claiming payment of title search fees / Applicant paid Respondent $1,315.99 / Applicant seeks return of $1,315.99 paid under statutory demand issued by Respondent / Held: Respondent to pay Applicant $1,335.44 for amount paid under statutory demand plus interest / given previous Tribunal order does not exclude consideration of set-off, it was intended as full and final determination of all matters raised in the application as filed / Respondent unreasonable to take actions it did / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicant undertook end-of-tenancy cleaning services for Respondent / Applicant claims that invoices not fully paid / Respondent claims Applicant overcharged for its services and/or enlarged the scope of its cleaning work / Applicant had previously provided a standard clean service for Respondent / If Respondent had intended a different scale of work, they should have used clearer and more direct language / Held: work different to what was contracted / No agreement for a detailed clean on all the properties / However fair compensation has not yet been paid for work done on these properties / Applicant entitled to payment of $1,934.30

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicants made hotel booking for hotel owned by Respondent  / Applicants paid premium for flexible booking option / A Covid-19 lockdown was announced / Applicants requested refund / Respondent would only offer credit to be used within the next year / Applicants claimed full refund of $457.00 cost of booking / Whether there was obligation to provide refund if Covid-19 lockdown prevented travel / Held: Respondent must provide refund under terms of contract / No provision in contract for Respondent to retain an amount to cover expenses / Respondent ordered to pay $457.00 / Claim granted.

Contract / Applicants assisted Respondent to have debt written off / Applicants claimed there was verbal agreement / Applicants claimed invoice for $5,750.00 / Whether the Respondent agreed to pay the Respondent / Held: Applicants failed to provide evidence of verbal agreement / Claim dismissed.