Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract law / Applicant registered for an event ran by Respondent / Applicant paid deposit / Respondent acknowledged deposit and informed final payment of $3,000 still needed to be paid / Respondent subsequently sent email about payment deadline and refund policy / Applicant made final payment / Before the event, Applicant emailed about transferring her registration due to illness / Respondent referred Applicant to their non-refundable and non-transferrable policy / Applicant withdrew from the race and was refunded $1,000 / Applicant now claims a refund of the remaining $2,000 / Held:  more likely than not that the non-refundable and non-transferable policy was made known on the third party website / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Building Act 2004 / Applicant entered agreement to purchase a new-build property / After moving in, Applicant raised several issues with the developer, including scratching and damage to much of the joinery in the house / Damage to joinery was not remedied / Applicant now claimed $23,138.00 from the Respondent building contractor for full re-coating of all the joinery in the property / Held: photographs demonstrated problem with joinery was widespread / Respondent failed to provide evidence the defects were not present at completion of the build or at settlement and therefore had an external cause independent of the building work / Building work was not carried out in a proper and competent manner, nor with reasonable care and skill / Damaged joinery was a building defect per the Building Act / Applicant notified the building defect within 12 months of building completion / Issue was not remedied within reasonable time / Applicant entitled to damages / Respondent ordered to …

Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Respondents sold campervan to Applicant for $12,000.00 / Applicant later found various problems with the van / Applicant claimed $8,157.00 for repairs / Held: message from Respondent saying there were “no rust/leaks” was not a misrepresentation entitling Applicant to compensation / Rust was visible, and Applicant had seen the van so had knowledge of its true state / Statement regarding no leaks referred to body of the van not the state of the engine / Message from Applicant saying he could pick van up “as long as no issue” was not a misrepresentation by Respondent / Photos of van showing only part of it were not a misrepresentation / Fact that no service had been undertaken since 2021 was not a misrepresentation / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a sofa for $550.00 from Respondent / After sofa was delivered, Applicant noticed there was a gap between the sofa cushions / Applicant asked Respondent to replace the sofa or rectify the problem / Respondent considered the gap was natural rather than defective / Applicant sought a refund of $550.00 / Held: unable to establish that the sofa failed to match the display model in quality / Reasonable consumer would not find the gap to be a defect, or to be unacceptable in appearance / Gap was a natural result of the design of the sofa / Although the Applicant considered the sofa was ugly that was a matter of personal preference rather than an aesthetic flaw / Claim dismissed.

Misrepresentation / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant bought a new caravan from First Respondents / Caravan had a heater as a chattel / Respondent told Applicant the heater was adequate / Applicant claimed for losses because the heater could not sufficiently heat the caravan / Held: Applicants failed to prove that the heater was misrepresented nor that it was not fit for purpose / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased heat pump unit manufactured by Respondent / Applicant quickly experienced issues with unit / Different installation company assessed unit and found it was installed incorrectly /  Applicant claimed for cost of remedial work from both respondents / Liquidator for Second Respondent did not consent to proceedings continuing against Second Respondent so Applicant continued claim against Respondent only / Held: failure of unit was result of installation work carried out by a person other the manufacturer / Respondents not liable for failed installation that caused issues / Claim dismissed. 

Contract / Respondent engaged Applicant to carry out landscaping / Applicant carried out work from 2022, receiving instructions and payments from the Respondent / Two years later, dispute arose between the parties /  Applicant offered three options / Respondent chose one of those options, which included termination of the agreement and a payment of $26,636.92 / Respondent requested Applicant signed an acknowledgement document before payment was made / Applicant signed document and added a payment date / Respondent then stated it did not consider that any further payments were owing / Applicant claimed $26,636.92 / Held: parties reached a binding agreement / Respondent confirmed it would take the option to terminate the Applicant’s agreement in return for payment of $23.162.54 / Agreement was a clear acceptance of one of the offers / Once the offer was accepted the Applicant was not entitled to unilaterally add a fixed date for payment, or to declare the acknowledgement document would b…

Contract / First Respondent had a commercial subscription with Applicant / Third Respondent had a private subscription with Applicant / First Respondent was in arrears and had lost subscription / Applicant became aware First Respondent was providing Second Respondent’s services to others / Applicant claimed $3,586.68 against all three Respondents for unpaid subscriptions and investigation costs / Held: claim against First Respondent proven / It was in arrears, and cost to identify how it was able to obtain Applicant’s services were reasonable / Claims against Second and Third Respondents dismissed / First Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $3,586.68 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Applicants purchased vacant section from Respondents / Sale and purchase agreement required Respondents to ensure boundary markers correctly placed on boundaries / Respondents also warranted no notice was received from local, government, statutory authority affecting the property / Applicants found no boundary markers in place / Local Authority notified Applicants of intention to take part of Applicant's land for road widening and that Respondents had been aware of this / Applicants had to change building plans / Applicants claimed for costs of surveying and additional design and consent costs / Held - Respondents breached agreement by failing to place boundary markers and failing to inform Applicants of Council's intention to take part of property / Losses incurred by Applicants were foreseeable consequences of Respondents' breach / Claim allowed.

Contract Law / Franchise Law / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant entered into a franchise cleaning agreement with Respondent / Applicant subsequently cancelled the agreement and sought a refund for the money paid for the business because of lack of cleaning job opportunities / Applicant claimed a refund for the money paid for the franchise business due to misrepresentation by Respondent / Held: Respondent misrepresented the period for promised turnover and the effect of the turnover guarantee / Respondent ordered to pay applicant $18,000 by 25 July 2024.

Guarantee / Property Law Act 2007 / Respondent provided accounting services to a company from 2015 to 2022 / Applicant is a director of the company / Respondent sent company invoices between 2016 and 2022 which were not paid in full / Outstanding invoices paid in May 2024 / Respondent claims Applicant as guarantor owes interest and collection costs due to late payment / Held: the guarantee was valid and covered the payment of fees and collection costs but not any interest payable by the company / Applicant ordered to pay Respondent $287.50 in collections costs under the guarantee.

Trespass / Applicant parked her vehicle in parking area / Respondent had authority to tow vehicles in parks leased by two businesses / Applicant admitted parking in the carpark but denied particular park was leased by relevant business and therefore Respondent was not legally entitled to tow her vehicle / Applicant sought repayment of towing fee paid to release her vehicle / Respondent provided evidence park was leased by relevant business and Respondent was authorised to tow the vehicle / Whether Applicant was given sufficient notice of park being subject to tow restrictions and whether amount claimed to release her vehicle was reasonable / Held: Applicant was given adequate notice of restrictions on use of the carpark and Applicant breached those terms / Respondent entitled to tow Applicant’s vehicle / Absence of evidence that Respondent’s $420.00 charge to release Applicant’s vehicle was unreasonable / Claim dismissed.

Consumer Law / Contract / Applicant laid concrete supplied by the Respondent on a driveway of a property development / The bottom half was much darker than the top half / The bottom half was supplied by the Respondent / Applicant claimed there was no black oxide or very little in the concrete for the concrete for the bottom half supplied by the Respondent / Applicant sought a refund of the price it paid the Respondent for the concrete ($5,146.22) plus interest (6% current bank rate at the time) /  Respondent claimed they were not told the concrete ordered needed to match with the concrete already there or they would have told the Applicant to use the top half supplier / Held: Applicant failed to prove their version of events was on balance more likely than the Respondent’s version / Of particular note was the Respondent’s evidence regarding different suppliers and that they were not aware they needed to match concrete / Respondent not liable for the difference in colour of concrete / C…