Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased puppy from respondent for $3,000 / Puppy required multiple surgeries / Applicant's insurance company paid $15,000 to applicant under pet insurance policy / Applicant claimed $30,000 for puppy's treatment and loss of income / Respondent offered to take puppy back / Applicant declined offer, respondent elected to refund the purchase price / Whether respondent made false or misleading representations to applicant about puppy, inducing her to enter into the contract / Whether puppy was of acceptable qualilty / What remedy, if any, was available to applicant / Held: no misrepresentation established / Failure of guarantee of acceptable quality of puppy / Given extent of puppy's problems, failure of substantial character / Applicant already been refunded purchase price / Applicant did not establish she suffered initial treatment and diagnosis costs that were not covered by insurance / No further remedy available / Outcome: claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants engaged Respondent to carry out electrical work for water pump on new water bore in 2017 / Applicants had ongoing problems with pump which burnt out in 2020 / Applicants claimed Respondents made various mistakes in electrical work resulting in the pump failing / Applicants claimed damages of $6,200.80 from Respondents / Whether subcontractors damaged the pipes / Whether Applicants were charged for incorrect cable and correct cable, if so should some or all costs be refunded / Whether Respondent used wrong type of flex to extend pump lead / Whether Respondent did not carry out services with reasonable care and skill and/or whether the services/product reasonably fit for purpose under ss 28, 29 CGA / Whether Applicants entitled to remedy / Respondent agreed subcontractors damaged pipe / Held: Respondent should have replaced incorrectly installed cable without charge / Incorrect flex used / Respondent failed to carry out services with r…

Consumers Guarantees Act 1983 (CGA) / Guarantee of acceptable quality / Applicant purchased jet ski from Respondent / Applicant discovered jet ski had issues after using and claims refund of purchase price and cost of repairs, WOF on trailer and mileage for travel to jet ski dealer / Held: CGA applies to sale, Respondent as supplier in trade has obligations under CGA / Held: jet ski not of acceptable quality, not free from minor defects, not durable and not fit for a purpose a reasonable consumer would find acceptable /  Held: failure of a substantial character, Applicant entitled to reject jet ski and entitled to refund / Held: Applicant entitled to compensation for cost of repair, trailer WOF and transport of jet ski. Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay $17,056.23 to Applicant / Respondent to arrange collection of jet ski

Negligence / Trailer hire / Accident whilst towing trailer / Extensive damage to vehicle as a result / Hire company owed duty of care to user of trailer / Issues with bolts, coupling and drawbar caused the accident / Entitled to damages for breach of duty of care / Award of $13,740.00 in damages

Contract / Applicant requested quotation for life insurance / Premium was 250% loading above normal rate due to Applicant's medical condition / Applicant accepted offer by signing special terms of acceptance / Applicant claimed inadequate disclosure by Respondent and that insurance policy be declared void / Applicant claimed all paid premiums returned, restricting claim to $30,000 to fall within Tribunal jurisdiction / Held: Respondent adequately disclosed to Applicant the details of agreement / No legal reason to cancel contract and refund paid premiums / Claim dismissed.

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant ordered vinyl planks with woodgrain effect from Respondent based on sample plank / After floor laid Applicant noticed ‘cross-marks’ which she believed were a fault / Applicant raised issue with Respondent who contacted supplier / Respondent confirmed with supplier that ‘cross-marks’ not a flaw and declined liability / Applicant claims $750.00 as reduction in value / Held: vinyl planks supplied did not correspond with sample in quality / Held: claimed amount of 50% reduction in value reasonable compensation for failure / Section 18(3) of CGA gives consumer right to reject goods and obtain compensation for reduction in value / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay $750 to Applicant

Fencing Act 1978 / Parties share an adjoining property boundary / Applicants wanted hedge between properties removed and wood paling fence erected instead / Respondents did not agree / Applicant removed tree on boundary and sprayed herbicide on stump / Herbicide was sprayed on section of boundary hedge which then died / Parties have agreed new fence is necessary / Whether Applicant’s poisoning of part of fence affects or displaces normal rule requiring neighbours to contribute equally to cost of adequate boundary fence / Held: hedge was not adequate fence even before poisoning / Poisoning not cause of need to erect new fence / Respondent should not be relieved of obligation to contribute to new fence / Respondent ordered to pay $1373.10 to Applicant / Respondent also ordered to pay $615.00 as ordered after previous hearing / Claim allowed

Contract / Flight tickets / Applicant was entitled to be reimbursed for expenses for employment related education during his employment / Reimbursement could be used to cover the cost of conferences and travel / Applicant booked flights for an overseas conference through the respondent / Conference and flights cancelled / Applicant asked the respondent to hold his airfares as credit / Airline issued refunds which the respondent credited back to the Applicant’s employer travelcard / Applicant was only made aware of the refund when he was no longer able to use the money for the original purpose / Applicant claimed $6,425.00 for airfares / Who did the respondent contract with for the flights / Whether the applicant was entitled to any remedy for the respondent’s failure to keep a credit or to inform him of the refund / Held: contract for travel was between the respondent and the applicant’s employer / Applicant was not a party to the contract / No breach of contract in relation to the ref…

Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Misrepresentation / Applicant purchased caravan from Respondent / Applicant did not inspect caravan before purchase / After purchase Applicant did not consider overall quality of caravan as good as advertisement presented / Applicant claimed misrepresentation regarding new wall and roof installation and refrigerator and sought damages of $14,500.00 / Held: factually incorrect information provided in relation to wall installation in caravan / Incorrect information not provided about refrigerator / Claim regarding misrepresentation of refrigerator must fail / Statement about new wall installation was of a nature that would induce an average objective person in the circumstances to enter the contract to purchase the caravan / Applicant has proven inducement and actionable misrepresentation by Respondent / Respondent ordered to pay $10,722.60 to Applicant / Claim allowed

Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Misrepresentation / Applicant purchased boat engine from Respondent after told motor perfect / After purchase Applicant discovered engine had defect and would not turn over / Applicant claims $1,269 from Respondent for sum paid and cost of mechanical assessment / Whether there was a misrepresentation in the sale of the motor / Whether Applicant entitled to sum claimed / Held: not true that motor was perfect at time statement was made / Language would have included a normal person to buy motor / Misrepresentation in sale of motor / Held: Applicant entitled to sum paid and expense of assessment / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay $1,269 to Applicant

Negligence / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Remedy / Applicant purchased horse from Respondent and Second Respondent / Applicant engaged Third Respondent to provide pre purchase examination which did not record any concerns / after purchase horse diagnosed with several issues and given poor prognosis for athletic performance and long term pleasure riding / Applicant euthanised horse and claims full reimbursement of purchase price of $28,750.00 from Respondents / Held: Third Respondent was not negligent in exercising duty of care when carrying out pre purchase exam of horse / Held: Respondent and Second Respondent acted “in trade” when sold horse to Applicant / Guarantees in CGA apply to sale / Held: horse did not comply with guarantees of acceptable quality and fitness for purpose per ss 7 and 8 of CGA / Held: failure of substantial character per s 21 of CGA / Applicant entitled to compensation of $19,165.00 / Claim allowed

Contract / Tort / Flatting agreements / Two separate flatmate agreements between the applicant property owner and the respondents / Dispute over flood damage, furniture damage and rent arears / Applicant claimed $2,055.00 from Respondents for compensation and rent arears / Tenancy Tribunal had earlier determined that the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 did not apply in this claim / Whether any or all of the respondents breached their duty of care not to damage the property / If so, what foreseeable loss flowed from the breach / Question of when the tenancy ended and whether rent had been paid to that date / Held: respondents owed a duty of care not to damage the applicant’s property / evidence established some of the respondents were responsible for damage to the sofa / evidence relating to flood damage unclear / not satisfied the applicant has proven the claim on the balance of probabilities / rent claim not proven on the evidence / two of the respondents responsible for small amount o…