Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Rehearing / Respondent applied for a rehearing because he missed call for original hearing / Held: no procedural unfairness when a party was informed of hearing date and choose not to attend / No miscarriage of justice from not being heard, as Respondent did not present evidence to support his claims / Rehearing not granted / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Vicarious liability / Applicant purchased wine barrels from Respondent / Respondent’s staff member assisted with carrying the barrels to Applicant’s vehicle and loading them / Applicant claimed barrel slipped and scratched his bumper / Applicant sought $773.38 for repairs / Respondent claimed it was a “joint lift”, it was Applicant’s side that slipped and it was not intentional nor careless by the staff member / Respondent paid half of Applicant’s repair invoice ($386.69) on the basis the Applicant shared the blame for damage / Held: no evidence Respondent’s staff member breached his duty of care / Respondent not vicariously liable for damage / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant conducted business from Respondent’s shop / Parties signed agreement detailing arrangement / Respondent later informed Applicant that the agreement was cancelled / Applicant claimed compensation for loss of income and related costs / Applicant claimed cancellation was unjustified and unlawful / Held: Applicant had contractual license to occupy part of Respondent’s premises / Respondent had legal freedom to revoke license at any time for any reason / Applicant had same freedom to cancel at any time for any reason / No agreement that consent of other party was required for revocation or cancellation / Respondent under no legal obligation to continue with arrangement / Respondent not liable for any costs or losses incurred / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Respondent booked into Applicant’s motel for two weeks / Standard night rate was $140 / Applicant claimed $1960 from Respondent on the basis that Applicant left without paying or checking out / Conflicting accounts of whether payment took place / Respondent claimed he did not receive notification of hearing / Held: Applicant’s account that Respondent made no payment was preferred / Evidence indicated Respondent was contacted about the hearing via mail, email and text message / Respondent ordered to pay $1960.00 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicant did some farm work as a contractor for Respondent / Applicant claimed $2,239.00 for work done in July 2023 / Respondent denied claim on basis Applicant did not do any work for him in July 2023 / Held: parties disagreed about when arrangement between them ended / Respondent claimed Applicant told him at the end of June that she did not want to work for him anymore / Applicant claimed that conversation happened at the end of July / No independent evidence about when conversation took place / Fact that Respondent paid Applicant for work done in first week of July supported inference that conversation took place at end of July, not end of June /  Respondent failed to prove Applicant had cancelled contract and did not do any work in July 2023 / Respondent breached agreement by failing to pay Applicant for time invoiced / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant invoiced amount of $2,239.00 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a second-hand fridge from Respondent for $600 / Applicant paid $30.00 for delivery / Months later, Applicant contacted Respondent stating the fridge was no longer cooling food /  Respondent repaired fridge at Applicant’s address / Shortly afterwards Applicant contacted Respondent to advise the problem did not appear to be fixed / Respondent advised that Applicant would have to bring the fridge in to be fixed / Applicant sought a refund for the fridge of $600.00 and $30.00 for delivery and $45.00 for the Tribunal filing fee / Held: Respondent did not succeeded in remedying the fault within a reasonable time frame / Applicant can reject the goods and get a $600 refund / Respondent failed to succeeded in remedying the fault / Applicant not entitled to a reimbursement of fridge delivery fee, $30 / Delivery was separate from the purchase and no fault with service / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $600 / Applicant ordered to r…

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged to carry out specialised cleaning job on Respondent’s home / Work  completed and invoiced for $3,153.05 / Payment made to Applicant for $2,000.00 / Respondent disputed outstanding balance of $1,153.05 as being an unreasonable price / Held: invoiced amount for specialist clean was a reasonable price / Comparable invoices for similar jobs carried out by Applicant were consistent in pricing with Respondent’s job / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,153.05 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicants entered sale and purchase agreement (SPA) to sell their home to Respondents / Respondents were unable to settle on Friday settlement date, and sale settled the following Monday / Applicants claimed $5392.38 for losses due to delayed settlement / Respondents disputed amount claimed as unreasonable / Held: Applicants entitled to claim costs for losses after settlement in accordance with clauses in the SPA / Applicants entitled to reasonable costs associated with breach of contract / Applicants entitled to $388.23 for 1 ½ hours mover’s waiting time, $2070.00 for storage and redelivery, $172.50 for additional legal expenses, $266.67 for food, pet boarding and additional petrol and travel, and $333.33 for meat and groceries that perished in moving truck / Respondents ordered to pay $3187.73 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Applicants and Respondent were neighbours / Respondent contacted Applicants about the possibility of removing trees located on Applicants' property near the boundary of their properties / Respondent withdrew previous offers to contribute to cost of removing trees / Applicants proceeded with the work / Applicants claimed tree felling cost contribution from Respondent including cost of removing and reinstating the fence / Held: no concluded agreement in respect of the amount that Respondent would contribute to the cost of the tree felling / Respondent not required to contribute to completed work cost /  Respondent also entitled to have fence reinstated to previous condition / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent for window painting / Quoted price was $4,538.77 / Applicant paid 50% deposit / At end of job, Applicant received invoice for $5,035.13, being $7,304.52 minus $2,269.39 deposit / Applicant paid $2,269.39 remainder of original quoted amount, and disputed remainder of invoice / Applicant also raised workmanship issues / Applicant claimed refund of $4,538.78 / Respondent counter-claimed $2,855.65 for outstanding invoice plus interest/costs / Held: parties agreed to $4,538.77 contract price / There was no clear agreement to vary contract price / Respondent’s work required remediation, therefore was not carried out with reasonable care and skill / Respondent had opportunity to remedy, but refused to do so due to dispute over invoice / Applicant entitled to cost of remedial work, $3,735.50 / Applicant not entitled to refund / Respondent ordered to pay $3,735.50 / Claim allowed in part, counter-claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant and Respondent were in a relationship / Applicant moved into Respondent's house / Applicant paid for a DVS to be installed, a survey, council fees, and a marketing report / House did not ultimately sell / Applicant claims $22,564 for these payments / Held: Tribunal has jurisdiction due to short length of relationship / No contract entered into as there was no intention to create legal relations / Applicant has assured Respondents that he would not be seeking repayments / Evidence that he was investing in the relationship rather than a contractual arrangement / No unjust enrichment to the Respondents / Claim dismissed

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent supplied and installed a gate automation system at Applicant’s property / Gate stopped working / Respondent established spider had entered unit, causing a short circuit / Respondent advised Applicant to spray insect repellent regularly to prevent problem reoccurring / Applicant paid $609.60 for service / Problem later reoccurred when slug entered unit and caused short circuit / Applicant paid $1,265.00 for repair / Applicant claimed box was not sealed properly, enabling insects to enter / Applicant claimed cost of both repairs, $1919.50 / Held: poor workmanship was not cause of insect infiltration / Evidence indicated insect infiltration may occur regardless of how unit was sealed / Applicant not made aware of insect repellent requirement prior to first incident, entitled to refund for first repair / Applicant was aware by second incident of need for insect repellent and missed a scheduled spraying / Applicant not entitled to refund …

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent to undertake pre-purchase inspection before purchasing house / Applicant complied with Respondent's recommendations for keeping roof in service / Approximately a year after purchasing the property, a leak in the roof caused damage to the kitchen ceiling, wall lining and cabinetry / Further investigation suggested entire roof was rusted and required replacement / Applicant claimed Respondent failed to alert them to poor state of roof, sought cost of roof replacement and kitchen repair / Held: photographs showed roof had deteriorated significantly since inspection / Respondent’s report indicated roof was old with a number of issues, including rust / Based on report, it would be reasonable for Applicant to expect further problems with roof / Applicant unable to prove Respondent failed to provide services without reasonable care and skill / Claim dismissed.