Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Damages / Second respondent responsible for vehicle accident that caused damage to Applicant’s property / Applicant claimed costs of $5,196.23 to repair the damage / Second Respondent claims a deduction should be made from the sum claimed to reflect betterment and a failure to mitigate costs / Held: appropriate to allow a deduction of 20% for betterment of the damaged property / Held: deduction of 20% towards costs regarding hours spent on repair and age of property for lack of documentation of actual costs / Claim allowed / Second respondent ordered to pay $4,156.98 to Applicant.

Contract / Negligence / Duty of Care / Applicant presented his caravan at Respondent’s repair shop for a quote / Respondent prepared quote for work and did not provide to Applicant / Respondent completed quoted work without seeking Applicant’s approval  / Respondent withheld caravan due to disputed unpaid invoice, caravan subsequently stolen by unknown person / Applicant claims cost of caravan / Respondent counter claims cost of repair and storage of car caravan / Held: No agreement established between Applicant and Respondent for work on caravan to be completed / No agreement established to pay storage costs / Counter claim dismissed / Respondent breached duty of care by refusing uplift of caravan into Applicant’s possession and resulting in caravan being stolen / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2800.00 / Claim allowed

Consumer law / s 13(a) of the Fair Trading Act 1986 / s 28 of the Consumer Information Standard (Used Vehicle) Regulations 2008 / Applicant purchased vehicle from Respondent / Respondent provided Applicant with a Consumer Information Notice at point of sale / notice incorrectly stated that the vehicle had not been imported as a damaged vehicle / Applicant claims $29,980.00 for cost of vehicle and sign writing / Held: Respondent made false representations regarding history of the vehicle / Respondent did not comply with Consumer Information Standard regulations / No defence under s 44(5) of the Fair Trading Act as Respondent knew, or should have known, that it did not comply with the consumer information standard / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $29,980.00 / Applicant ordered to make vehicle available for collection by Respondent.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased a power meter from Respondent on a website / Applicant stated advertisement claimed power meter was in an excellent condition / Applicant claimed the power meter readings were inaccurate / Website rules allowed three-day return period / Applicant contacted Respondent nine days after he received power meter / Applicant alleged Respondent misrepresented the condition of the power meter and had refused to refund his money / Whether Respondent made any misrepresentations which induced the Applicant to enter the contract / Whether Respondent breached terms and conditions implied in the contract / Whether Applicant entitled to return power meter and have his money returned / Held: no independent evidence to support allegation that the meter readings were well below what was advertised / Applicant did not prove there was a misrepresentation / Website rules were clear and provided for a three-day return period / Too many var…

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Variation of contract / Reasonable price / Respondent engaged Applicant to provide landscaping services at his home / Applicant provided Respondent a written scope of works priced as a “provisional estimate” / A variation order was issued to reflect a change in materials for a path from concrete to stone / During project disputes arose over quality of work and amounts being invoiced / Applicant claims unpaid invoices of $18,306.22 / Respondent counter-claims $30,000 representing sums over-paid and remedial costs / Held: no meeting of the minds with respect to the variation of the total price for the stone path / Applicant’s variation order was not clear or consistent with other comparable pricing for paving with the same product / Respondent claims “remedial” work not carried out by Applicant but was charged in provisional estimate / Held: reduction for remedial work in the overall claim per terms of “reasonable price” under s 31 of the CGA / C…

Negligence / Applicant’s hot water cylinder leaked and had to be replaced / Applicant claims cause was Respondent’s act of chlorinating water supply / Applicant claims cylinder replacement cost of $2,167.75 / Held: Respondent was not negligent in adding chlorine to water supply / Amount added well within New Zealand drinking water standards / Levels were frequently monitored / Held: Insufficient evidence to prove more likely than not that chlorine caused cylinder to fail when it did / Claim dismissed 

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Failure to comply with guarantee that services be provided with reasonable care and skill / Applicant engaged Respondent to carry out painting work at a property / Applicant claims the work done was substandard / Applicant claims $12,677.86, for cost of remedying work, alleged overcharging and damage to the property / Held: Evidence establishes that the services provided by the Respondent were not of acceptable quality / Respondent therefore failed to comply with the guarantee that services be provided with reasonable care and skill / Overcharging established for GST amount included on one invoice / Damage to carpet established, taking into account depreciation over time / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $8,908.75

Consumer law / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicant purchased a refurbished phone for $699.99 from Respondent / Applicant’s daughter dropped the phone into a pool / Afterwards problems with the phone / Applicant returned phone to Respondent for repairs / Respondent refused to repair phone without charging / Applicant alleged phone was marketed as being waterproof but was not / Applicant claimed original cost of the phone / Whether Respondent engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct / If so, whether amount claimed was reasonable / Held: Respondent’s website did not state that refurbished phones are not as durable nor that the warranty did not cover water damage / Respondent engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct / Test was how long a reasonable person would expect a refurbished phone to last / Expectation that EK’s phone would last another 26 months / Calculated that Applicant’s phone had 72 percent of its life left / Claim allowed in part / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $503…

Jurisdiction / applicant purchased trailer to build tiny house / trailer registered in applicant’s name & statement that ownership transferred on payment / seller went into liquidation & trailer & partially built house included in sale of business / whether Tribunal has jurisdiction or whether claim should be transferred to District Court (DC) / whether applicant had title to trailer / whether respondent liquidator liable for conversion / Companies Act 1993, s284 / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Held: claim based on property ownership not debt so Tribunal has jurisdiction / Tribunal regularly deals with interpretation of contracts so no need to transfer to DC / trailer in a deliverable state / applicant had title to trailer / ownership transferred on payment & attaching plates signified intention to transfer / respondent liable for conversion / applicant deliberately excluded from possession by respondent / claim allowed / respondent ordered to pay $12,737.05 to applicant.

Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Caveat emptor / Applicant purchased vehicle from Respondent / Applicant brought claim for cost of having repairs done to vehicle after purchase / Applicant claims Respondent misrepresented condition of car / Held: Applicant not able to prove case to required standard / No actionable misrepresentation by Respondent / Claim dismissed

Contract / Misrepresentation / Applicant purchased a car from Respondent in a private sale / Car developed problems / Mechanic determined would cost more to fix than the car was worth / Applicant asked for money back from Respondent / Respondent refused / Applicant claim was for refund of $3,500.00 or for repair costs / Whether the Respondent made a untrue statement about the car / If so whether the untrue statement induced the Applicant to buy the car / If so, what was the costs of repair / Held: unable to find that the Respondent made untrue statements / Claim in misrepresentation fails / Claim dismissed

Limitation Act 2010 / Incapacity / Applicant purchased unit in a unit title development from the Respondent in a mortgagee sale / Dispute arose over who was to pay outstanding levies owed on unit / Applicant paid levies without prejudice to seek compensation  / Applicant sought $30,000 in levies, interest and costs incurred when levies were paid / Whether the claim was out of time / Whether it was just to allow the claim on the grounds of incapacity / Held:  Applicant filed claim six years after settlement / Respondent was entitled to defend the claim on the grounds that it was out of time / Applicant was incapacitated for periods of time / However, Applicant had capacity to instruct a lawyer during in the six year period before the claim was to be heard / Extension in filing unjust / Late filing of claim delayed the Respondent's ability to defend claim / Claim dismissed.