Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Respondent and Second Respondent own a farm property / Applicant is Respondent’s daughter / In 2016, parties discussed carrying out a subdivision on the farm property and selling a lot of land to the Applicant and her partner / Surveying work was done on the land / In 2017, parties signed an agreement regarding subdivision / Applicant paid deposit of $32,000 to Respondents / In 2018, district plan changes meant proposed subdivision could not proceed / Parties entered discussions regarding boundary adjustment as opposed to subdivision / Applicant and her new partner were not financially able to proceed with alternative plan / Applicant sought refund of the deposit / Held: reasons outside the parties control meant the deal could not proceed / 2017 agreement was binding and enforceable / Agreement meant Applicant entitled to refund of deposit / Applicant reduced her claim to $30,000 on basis that Respondents paid back $2,000 of the deposit / Respondents ordered to pay the Appli…

Contract / Breach / Remedy / Applicant and family group booked two family rooms at hostel / First Respondent Manager at hostel, hostel owned and operated by Second Respondent / After late check in Applicant decided rooms were unsuitable and left, was charged full amount of accomodation plus fees / Applciant claims for refund of accomodation charges / Whether Respondents entitled to charge for accomodation, whether Applicant entitled to refund / Held: applicant accepted terms and conditions of contract / Held: Respondent entitled to charge for accommodation in accordance with contract / Claim dismissed    

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993/ Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Carrier of Goods / Applicant engaged the Respondent to uplift and transport her items to a different region / Applicant paid $10,953 15 to Respondent for the service including $998.00 for the insurance / Many of the items were damaged on arrival and some were missing / Items were either repaired or a cash settlement was made by the insurance company / Applicant sought a refund of the amount paid for the service and an additional $14,000.00 for distress and inconvenience / The total amount sought was $25,000.00 / Did the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) apply / If so, did the Respondent breach the CGA by failing to provide its services with reasonable care and skill / If the CGA applied was the Applicant entitled to a refund of the amount paid for the service of $10,953.15 / If the CGA did not apply, was the Applicant entitled to compensation under the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA) / Is the A…

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant provided structural engineering services to Respondents / Respondents did not want to pay remaining balance invoice / Respondent claimed they did not receive satisfactory or timely services / Held: Applicant breached the contract as the plan provided was not prepared with reasonable care and skill / Respondents breached the contract as they failed to follow the remedies available under s 32 of the CGA / Respondents obliged to pay Applicant $452.81 / Claim granted.  

Sale and Purchase / Further term that required $20,000 retainer for any remedial dental work / Applicant claiming $20,000 owing to them / Respondent counter-claiming $17,631.85 for breach of warranty, legal costs and conversion / Retention fund covered a two-year period / Implied term that evidence of work would be provided / Some work claimed as remedial work still to be undertaken and outside of two year period / Held: legitimate remedial work of $11,927.85 has been carried out / Respondent to pay Applicant $8,072.15

Contract / Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 / Applicant engaged Respondent to carry out work at property / Quote from Respondent was $552.00 for two persons working four hours / Only one hour was actually worked / Applicant claims she was induced to enter contract on misrepresentation and is not liable in respect of amount payable under contract / Held: representation of required hours did contain a misrepresentation / Appropriate charge for two person working for one hour should have been $138.00 / Claim allowed / Applicant ordered to pay $138.00 to Respondent / Respondent ordered to provide Applicant bank details, if not done by specified date Applicant is declared not liable for amount owed  

Consumer Guarantees Act / Applicant had boat motor repaired by applicant / Problem recurred after being repaired twice / Boat failed sea test / Applicant refused to pay invoice / Applicant not bound by agreement as did not know whether work had been successful / Work not fit for purpose / Respondent did not communicate that work may not fix the issue / Held: Applicant entitled to cancel the subsequent contract after the first invoice / Respondent to pay Applicant $2,175.00

Contract / Negligence / Applicant suffered damage to car driving on road maintained by Respondent / Applicant claimed Respondent breached contract / Applicant claimed cost of replacing wheel / Held: claim cannot be founded on contract as road user charges do not arise from voluntary exchange of promises / Held: claim more cogent as negligence claim / Held: its is not proven vehicle damaged by alleged road / Held: Respondent met legal duty of care / claim dismissed

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant purchased washing machine from Respondent / washing machine failed when the tip of a drawstring on a pair of shorts was torn off and damaged inner plastic drum / Did washing machine meet guarantees of acceptable quality pursuant to CGA / Did Respondent comply with obligations pursuant to CGA / Is Applicant entitled to refund and damages for consequential losses / Held: washing machine does not comply with CGA guarantees of acceptable quality / no evidence Applicant misused washing machine / washing machines should be able to cope with common type of clothing / Held: Respondent failed to comply with CGA obligations / Respondent failed to address Applicant’s complaint sufficiently or timely / Respondent responded late and blamed Applicant for failure / Held: Respondent to pay Applicant $1,715.00 being refund of purchase price plus consequential damages / Held: Respondent to collect washing machine or pay Applicant additional $250.…

Contract / Applicant purchased property from Respondents / Applicant claims dishwasher did not work on settlement in breach of agreement / Applicant claims $2000 being cost of replacement diswasher / Whether Respondents breached agreement; if so, what damage was caused; and what, if anything, is Applicant entitled to claim / Held: more likely than not dishwasher in reasonable working order at date of settlement / Claim dismissed

Contract / Applicant tried to purchase camera from Respondent for $2986.00 / Transaction declined twice / Told that he could take promotional items and buy the camera in a different city / Applicant discovered that $5972.00 had been deducted from his account / Applicant claimed $30,000 in compensation / Held: Respondent’s did not breach a contractual obligation / Fault was with the third party eftpos service / Parties unable to be conclude the contract they both wished to be bound by / Applicant has no cause of action against the Respondent because no contract existed / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act / Applicant contracted by Respondent to supply and install water treatment plant for main house and carry out additional work relating to tanks on property / Respondents disputed amount invoiced and calculated they had been overcharged / Respondents reduced $13,557.80 from the $40,337.98 invoiced by Applicant / Applicant’s sent revised invoice and statement owing balance outstanding of $11,886.78 / Applicant claims this amount from Respondents / Held: Consumer Guarantees Act applies only to work covered by the quote / Aspects of project were not carried out with reasonable care and skill / Ozone filter was of acceptable quality and fit for purpose / Respondents refused to allow reinstallation of filter / Claim allowed, Respondents to pay Applicants $3,043.90

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Guarantee of acceptable quality / Applicant purchased vehicle for business being sold by Second Respondent on behalf of First Respondent / Rust on vehicle hidden by vinyl covering on roof at time of sale / Applicant claims compensation from Respondents / Held: reasonable consumer would consider rust minor defect in vehicle of that age / Held: Applicant consumer under CGA / Business use does not exclude Applicant from being a consumer / Second Respondent claims not liable as supplier as selling on behalf / Held: Second Respondent supplier under s 2(1) of the CGA / Supplier includes agent / Supplier to be liable for repairs / First and Second Respondent claim not liable as not RMVTs / CGA not limited to RMVTs / Held: First and Second Respondent could be held liable under the CGA / Both party to sale / Claim allowed / Respondents ordered to pay $828.00 to Applicant