Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Applicant sold and supplied products to Respondent on charge up basis / Applicant claimed $14,703.04 for unpaid invoices and interest / Parties had agreement that Respondent could charge items to his father's account, which was then invoiced  / Respondent then created own trade account / Respondent claimed there were duplicate invoices across two accounts / Respondent also claimed some invoiced products were not delivered / Held: Respondent did not query invoices when delivered / Respondent not able to provide any evidence of duplication on invoices / Respondent not able to provide bank records indicating he paid invoices / Respondent ordered to pay $14,045.22 for unpaid invoices / Interest cannot be charged as Applicant could not establish was an agreed term of contract / Claim granted in part.

Rehearing Application / Contract /  Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 / Disputes Tribunal made an order for Respondent to pay Applicant $550 / Respondent applied for an adjournment due to illness / Held: Respondent's documents unavailable due to delay provides strong grounds for granting rehearing / However, even if the additional evidence and submissions had been available, they would not have altered the outcome of the claim / Respondent seemingly accepted Applicant's entitled to refund / Previous order stands / Rehearing refused.

Negligence / Duty of care / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / Applicant and Respondent involved in vehicle accident / Applicant's insurer covered vehicle repair costs / Applicant claimed $8,588.44 / Held: Respondent failed to ensure path he was driving into was clear when he drove into Applicant's vehicle / Respondent was negligent / Applicant did not contribute to cause of collision / Costs claimed reasonable for damage caused in collision / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant's Insurer $8,588.44 / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants purchased lamps from Respondent via their New Zealand website / Lamps not usable without stepdown voltage changer / Applicants contacted Respondent regarding refund, which was not accepted / Applicants sought refund of costs of lamps, $845.95 / Held: implied that electrical appliances supplied in New Zealand will be of suitable type and voltage to be used in New Zealand / Lamps not fit for purpose / Failure was substantial as lamps could not be used for purchase purpose /  Respondent ordered to pay $845.95 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Respondent entered into contract with Applicant for data plan / Plan discontinued by network provider / Applicant offered Respondent alternative options / Respondent queried rising cost of data and stopped payment / Applicant claimed $1,191.91 owing payment / Held: Respondent used excess data he has been invoiced for / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,191.91 / Claim allowed.

Guarantees / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant had a double sided gas fire installed by Respondents in her new home / Error codes started appearing on the fire’s remote control / Applicant contacted the fire supplier / Supplier told him to contact a plumber or gas fitter to get it repaired / A gas fitter came and repaired the fire / Applicant was charged $477.25 for repair which he now claims from Respondent / Held: Insufficient evidence to prove the issue with fire was due to manufacturer’s fault / More likely an installation issue which Respondent had not been involved with / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Parties entered into lease for commercial premises / Respondents did not wish to renew lease with increased rent / Respondents paid at old rate while looking for other premises / Applicant seeks shortfall between old rent and new rent, management fee, operational expenses, legal costs, management time and loss of rental income / Held: no rent arrears because of timing of rent increase / Management fee cannot be charged to the tenant / Operating expenses accepted by respondents / Each party must pay their own costs / No power to award costs for filing fee and photocopying / Respondents liable for outstanding operational expenses and damages for loss of opportunity to rent / Claim allowed, respondents to pay applicants $6,342.86

Building / Contract / Respondent contracted Applicant to build a deck / Dispute arose pertaining to $19,337.22 invoice for deck framing / Applicant “walked off the job” after being told he would not be paid / Applicant claimed $19,337.22 for work completed / Respondent disputed invoice and counter-claimed $12,924.45, $6412.00 for balance already paid and remedial costs / Held: $12,925.22 was the starting point for the outstanding balance owed to Applicant / On the counter-claim, $1444.20 was deducted for over-charges by Applicant / Further $1923.11 deducted for remedial costs / Respondent ordered to pay the Applicant $9557.92 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Respondent opened credit account with Applicant / Clause 7 of contract gave Applicant right to charge 18% per annum interest on overdue accounts and made Respondent liable for all legal and other fees incidental to recovery / Respondent purchased roofing supplies from Applicant on credit but failed to pay purchase price on due date / Applicant claimed for debt collection commission and other debt collection costs / Held: sum claimed is demonstrably unreasonable for a letter of demand, a few phone calls and a statutory demand / Party in breach only has to pay amount it would have cost to take those reasonable steps / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $700 / Claim allowed in part.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) / Applicant engaged Respondents’ plumbing services for renovation / Parties agreed work would be overseen by LPB plumber / During renovation, bathroom failed two council inspections, was flooded due to incorrect pipe connections, and there were issues with trench / Respondent’s LPB supervisor was only notified of job after issues arose, advised Applicant not to allow Respondents back on site / Applicant claimed $10,800 for remedial costs and reduction in value / Held: Respondents did not provide services with reasonable care and skill / Respondents’ failure to put LPB supervision in place, after saying they would, was substantial failure under CGA, and misleading conduct / Applicant entitled to remedial costs offset by additional contract costs / Respondents ordered to pay Applicant $5850 / Claim allowed.    

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Respondents engaged Applicant for tiling work / No prior quote was supplied to or sought by Respondents / Applicant invoiced Respondents $2,471.35 for work / Respondents disputed price, Applicant reduced invoice to $2,050.45, crediting for unused tiles / Respondents still disputed invoice, paid $1,150 which they believed was fair price / Applicant claimed $900.45 for balance of outstanding invoice / Held: Applicant’s charge was reasonable, in line with requirements of CGA / Respondents ordered to pay Applicant $900.45 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant accepted quote from Respondent for materials and labour for interior painting / Whether Respondent failed to exercise reasonable care and skill / Applicant claimed $12,660.35 to remedy painting and associate damage caused by Respondent / Held: Respondent's painting work fell short of the standard of reasonable care and skill / Overall outcome was not reasonably fit for purpose / Failure of substantial character and entitled Applicant to cancel contract / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $6941.29 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased motorhome from Respondent for $83,000 / Pre-purchase inspection identified issue with heating system / Respondent advised issue would be resolved by replacing stepper motor, offered replacement / Heating issues continued after replacement / Applicant claimed $3,120.99 cost of repairs to resolve problem / Held: Respondent’s claim that replacement stepper motor would remedy issue was misrepresentation, but ‘innocent’ / Respondent still liable to compensate Applicant for costs incurred rectifying problem / Costs claimed included normal maintenance costs, not Respondent’s responsibility / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2,504.59 / Claim allowed.