Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a couch from Respondent / wooden slats of couch broke / Applicant claimed full refund of couch / Held: damage was caused by failure of the wood and construction method and not by inconsistent use of couch by Applicant / couch not of acceptable quality / failure of goods not substantial / Applicant gave Respondent chance of remedy and Respondent refused to do so within reasonable time / Applicant could return the couch despite Respondent’s no return policy / damage caused by hidden defects so Applicant could only have known of faults when wood broke / Applicant not taken unreasonable length of time to ask for refund / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant full refund of $1,596.00 for couch and Applicant to return couch to Respondent at her cost. 

Negligence / Respondent’s digger bucket fell onto motorway / Applicant drove car into Respondent’s digger bucket / Applicant’s car damaged / Applicant claimed Respondent’s driver was negligent for not securing his load / Respondent claimed digger bucket had been stolen / Applicant claimed losses resulting from damage to car / Held: digger bucket fell off trailer driven by employee of Respondent / Respondent’s driver failed to adequately secure his load and was negligent / no contributory negligence on Applicant’s part / Respondent vicariously liable for driver’s negligent actions and liable to pay for Applicant’s reasonable losses / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $5975.

Contract / Applicant purchased residential property from Respondent at auction / Applicant later found the Bon-Air Vulcan ducted gas heating system would not work / claims $9,731.32 for diagnosis and replacement of system / Held: gas heating system is not a chattel and therefore not covered by vendor warranties in Sale of Real Estate by Auction contract / gas heating system is a fixture that was part of the property sold and there is no requirement to provide fixtures in any particular condition / no basis in law for claim of compensation / claim dismissed

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / guarantee of acceptable quality / Applicant purchased a vehicle from a private seller / vehicle originally imported by second Respondent / vehicle used to transport costumes / vehicle’s transmission failed / Applicant claimed cost of repairs to transmission / Held: Vehicle failed to be as durable as a reasonable consumer would have expected / Applicant was a “consumer” under CGA / vehicle ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use or consumption / vehicle not used in an unreasonable manner or to an unreasonable extent / second Respondent as an importer came within the definition of “manufacturer” under CGA / consumer not required to give manufacturer an opportunity to remedy fault unless it is covered by a contractual warranty / cost of repairing transmission reasonably foreseeable / Respondents jointly liable to pay Applicant $3,978.09.

Negligence / motor vehicle collision / Applicant was riding motor scooter when a vehicle turned right across her path / Applicant claims losses from damage to scooter that was uneconomic to repair / Respondent denies being the driver of the car and knew nothing about the collision before receiving notice of proceedings / Held: on balance of probabilities, Respondent was the driver of the vehicle / Respondent failed to check that all lanes were clear before turning right / Respondent liable for reasonable losses / claim allowed, Respondent to pay Applicant $3,554 in replacement costs .

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / guarantee of reasonable skill and care / Applicant engaged Respondent to paint fence / surface bubbling appeared six months after fence was painted / inspection report found paint job was not the cause of bubbling / Applicant did not accept report and claimed cost of remedying the problem / Held: Respondent did not breach guarantee of reasonable skill and care / Respondent did not misapply coatings / Respondent used correct products / likely cause of bubbling was an underlying moisture problem /no evidence to suggest Respondent should have identified moisture problem /  nothing to suggest Respondent caused or contributed to problem / Respondent not liable for cost of remedying problem / claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicants chartered a boat from Respondent / boat returned to port three days before end of charter period due to bad weather / Respondent offered Applicants a refund / Applicants disputed amount of refund / Respondent’s terms and conditions provided for a 50 per cent refund / Respondent claimed 50 per cent refund only applied to pre-departure cancellations / Applicants interpreted refund to apply when all other conditions met / Applicants claimed refund of 50 per cent of pro-rata fee for unused three days / Held: Applicants entitled to a refund of 50 per cent of the remaining day’s charter fee / Respondent’s terms and conditions ambiguous / wording did not indicate that 50 per cent refund only applied to pre-departure cancellations / doctrine of contra proferentem favoured Applicants’ interpretation / all other conditions met / claim allowed

Contract / Respondent purchased Company B from Company A / Respondent assigned the licence and supply agreement that Company A has with the Applicant / Applicant claimed $15,000.00 for Respondent’s breach of the agreement / Held: Respondent breached cl 8.4 of agreement by not checking whether the Applicant had the items in stock before using another supplier / Applicant breached cl 8.3 of agreement by failing to attempt to supply stock from an alternative supplier when it did not have the item in stock itself / this breach was not a defence to Respondent’s breach of cl 8.4 / meaning of cl 4.7 raised issue of ambiguity / cl 4.7 inserted specifically when Company A purchased business from Company B  so should be treated as having a different meaning than cl 8.4 / Respondent entitled to flexible product sourcing options under cl 4.7 / no evidence showing cl 4.7 not meant to include subsequent buyers of the business / principle of contra proferentum applies so contract is interpreted again…

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant arranged flights through the second and third Respondents / third Respondent disallowed Applicant to travel / second Respondent deducted cancellation fees and refunded balance to Applicant / Applicant claimed refund of fees deducted by second Respondent / Held: third Respondent did not provide its services to Applicant with reasonable skill and care / Applicant entitled to cancel contract with third Respondent because failure could not be remedied / third Respondent liable to pay Applicant damages in compensation / Applicant suffered consequential loss from third Respondent’s breach of the CGA which was the amount charged for second Respondent’s cancellation fees / claim allowed, third Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,550.

Contract / Applicants purchased a property from Respondents / greywater was found to be discharging onto Applicants’ property / an investigation revealed septic system began overflowing when blocking plate removed from pipes / Applicants carried out extensive remedial and replacement work / Applicants claimed $15,000.00 from Respondents for their non-disclosure of the issue / Held: Respondent had no issues with the septic system since mid-1970s so had nothing to disclose when asked / no evidence to prove any problem occurred prior to the one the Applicant’s experienced / no other basis for claim / claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA), ss 32 and 43 / Applicant left car at Respondent’s airport parking facility / employee damaged car while moving it / damage repaired at a cost of $2,275.16 by Applicant’s insurer / Applicant and Applicant’s insurer claim for that amount / Held: Applicant meets definition of consumer under CGA / Respondent’s terms and conditions do not exclude liability as employee was driving the car and Respondent cannot contract out of CGA, under s 43 / driving is an integral part of Respondent’s service and crashing the car is a failure of reasonable care and skill except in extraordinary circumstances / evidence not able to establish any extraordinary circumstances / Applicants entitled to remedy under s 32, CGA / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2,275.16

Negligence / car collision / Applicant and Respondent had a side-on collision as Respondent changed lanes to the left, then came back to the right, colliding with Applicant’s vehicle / Held: Respondent fully moved into left lane as damage to Applicant’s car extends the entire left side which is not possible to occur if both vehicles are partially occupying same lane / Respondent liable in negligence for damage to Applicant’s car as did not ensure it was safe to change lanes back to the right / Applicant did not contribute to the impact / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4,606.35 for repair and rental car costs

Contract / sale and purchase of business / while restaurant equipment included on chattels list, equipment required to run restaurant not included / Applicant’s claim reduced to maximum amount claimable in Tribunal for one year’s hire of equipment not provided / Respondent counterclaimed for unpaid balance of stock-in-trade / Held: Respondent breached contract by failing to include all assets used to run business / while Applicant required to check and approve equipment, Applicant did not fail to perform due diligence / Applicant’s claim not challenged, Respondent’s counterclaim payable / claim and counter-claim allowed, Respondent to pay Applicant $12,522.69