Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicant purchased robot vacuum from Respondent / Applicant tried to return vacuum because could not connect to app and it got stuck / Respondent refused to accept return because Applicant refused assistance to set up vacuum and was considered not to be a serious buyer / Applicant claimed refund / Held: Respondent obliged to accept return and provide refund / Respondent’s suspicions of Applicant’s motive to buy vacuum were not substantiated by sufficient objective evidence / Respondent’s claims were misleading but no need for remedy under the Act / Respondent contractually obligated to accept return / Respondent ordered to pay $1,999.00 to Applicant / Applicant ordered to return vacuum to Respondent / Claim allowed.

Contract / Contract agreement / Applicant provided contract farming services to Respondents / Contract between the parties was terminated prematurely / Respondents withheld monies payable from Company to Applicant / Respondents claims breach of agreement / Applicants claims for unpaid milk, power and legal fees / Whether Respondents entitled to withhold monies / Whether Applicant entitled to legal fees and amount claimed / Held: Lack of water provided by Respondents being the cause of penalty for the milk grade / No fault of Applicant / Respondents not proven damage to gates, rails and clearlite was cause by negligence of Applicant / Applicant not entitled to legal fees / Claim allowed for unpaid milk and power / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $8560.22

Negligence / Respondent turned right out of carpark and collided with vehicle owned by applicant / Applicant and Applicant’s insurer claim for losses resulting from collision / Held: respondent breached duty to give way to traffic / Minor contributory negligence on part of applicant / Respondent to pay 80% of losses suffered / Claim allowed

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased mower from Respondent / Mower had issues with brakes, deck belt and gear box / Applicant advised Respondent of multiple defects with mower / Respondent claims Applicant did not comply with Owner’s manual and actions contributed to failures / Applicant exercised right to reject it and requested a refund from Respondent / Respondent claims mower was fit for purpose  / Applicant seeks refund of $15,000 for mower for failures and defects / Held: mower not of acceptable quality or fit for purpose; failures of mower integral to nature, operation and control of machine and of a substantial nature; Applicant rejected mower within a reasonable time and is entitled to a refund / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant refund of $14,872.00

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Guarantee that goods comply with description /  Failure of substantial character / Respondent engaged Applicant to supply and install kitchen benchtop / Respondent refused to pay balance of contract because no hole for tap in benchtop and it did not correspond with description / Applicant claims $1,750 from Respondent / Applicant claims no room to put hold in benchtop for tap and plan was draft / Held: plan contained description of what to be supplied / Respondent did not approve changes and benchtop did not correspond with description / Failure to match description is of substantial character per s 21(b) CGA as benchtop departs in significant respect from description / Respondent entitled to remedy per s 18 CGA / Held: Respondent entitled to set off of $1,750 against balance of his account / Applicant not entitled to further payment / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant provided labour and machinery to respondent for a job at his property / Respondent refused to pay invoice as he believes he did not enter a contract with Applicant / Applicant claims the amount of $4740.40, being the amount of the unpaid invoice / Held: not satisfied on the evidence there was a mutual intention to create legal relations / Unable to find a verbal agreement existed / No enforceable contract between Applicant and Respondent as essential elements not present / Claim dismissed

Claim for repair costs / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / Respondent struck door of parked car while driving / Insurer seeking cost of repair for Applicant's car / Issue whether Respondent opened car door in a manner which created a hazard / Issue whether Applicant contributed by failing to keep a proper lookout or driving too close to parked cars / Found that Respondent did open door with oncoming traffic / Unable to make finding that Applicant contributed due to limited evidence / Respondent to pay $3,191.22

Construction law / ss 40, 362I, 362N and 362O Building Act 2004 / Applicant engaged Respondent to carry out work underpinning the foundations of their house / Respondent did not obtain building consent before completing work / Applicant claims $5,389.63, including refund of $2,000.00 payment and cost of follow-up assessment / Held: Underpinning work required building consent / Respondent breached warranty that building work will comply with all laws and legal requirements / Breach substantial, Applicant entitled to compensation for diminution in value and reasonably foreseeable consequential losses / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $5,389.63

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent provided estimate to complete car restoration / Dispute over estimate being exceeded / Respondent seeking further payment before releasing the car / Estimate provided rather than a quote / Estimate exceeded by $9,409.00 / Held: Respondent had breached its contractual and statutory obligations / Additional cost 50% above original estimate / Amounts to a misrepresentation / Applicant's legal costs recoverable / Applicant not liable to pay interest or storage costs / Applicant liable to pay $1,856.19 to have car returned

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant brought shed/cabin from Respondent / If cabin is weathertight and if there was mould in the interior / Applicant claims a refund for cabin and consequential losses, including third party installation costs and damage to belongings / Applicant also claims for amount spent on wiring the cabin / Held: the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 applies / Cabin did not correspond with description provided by Respondent / Fact that cabin was not weather proof and water tight is a failure of substantial character / Applicant entitled to reject cabin, obtain full refund and damages for reasonably foreseeable further losses / Portion of cost spent on wiring allowed / Claim allowed

Contract / Respondent hired van from applicant / Van broke down during respondent’s use / Van’s clutch plate was burnt out / Applicants claim for cost of clutch replacement / Respondent claims the refund of his bond / Held: respondent drove vehicle in manner that caused premature failure of the clutch / Respondent covered by indemnity against damage provided by the contract / Respondent not liable for clutch damage under terms of the contract with applicant / Respondent not liable to pay for replacement clutch / Respondent entitled to bond refund / Claim dismissed

Contract / Applicant entered contract to purchase puppy from Respondent / Parties agreed Applicant could be refunded if puppy did not meet preferences / After puppies born Applicant advised none met preferences and asked for refund of deposit / Respondent refused refund / Applicant claims refund of deposit plus costs / Held: contract allowed Applicant to back out of purchase and receive refund if not happy with puppy on offer for personal reasons as long as done in good faith / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay $585.00 to Applicant / Applicant cannot recover costs or Tribunal filing fee per s 43 of the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988.

Contract / Applicant asked respondent for help accessing cheap flights with specific airline / Applicant not happy with tickets as they were not with specific airline, had multiple stops and some tickets were invalid / Applicant’s family purchased new tickets / Applicant claims for amount paid for the unused tickets / Held: respondent not acting ‘in trade’ as is not in the business of making travel arrangements or providing travel agency services / No other cause of action for legal claim against respondent / Claim dismissed.