Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Applicant agreed to a 3-month membership with Respondent / Applicant cancelled membership later in the month and says entitled to refund / Respondent refused refund / Held: Regret and feeling forced not grounds to say agreement not lawfully entered into / No evidence of breach of agreement / No grounds to order a refund / Claim dismissed

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased a caravan from Respondent / Respondent stated the chassis was in good condition / Applicant got the caravan home and found the chassis was covered in rust, rot and holes / Applicant raised issue with Respondent who offered a full refund upon return of the caravan / Applicant declined the offer as caravan was not road worthy to make the return journey / Applicant claims $1,359.75 plus the costs to bring the claim of $140.25 / Held: Respondent did misrepresent the condition of the chassis which induced the Applicant into the purchase / Tribunal is unable to award cost for bringing the claim / Compensation of $951.82 is awarded to Applicant which is 70% of the repair cost, taking into consideration the significant upgrade that the repair afforded the Applicant / Claim partially granted.

Contract / Applicants engaged Respondent to install a kitchen / Work failed to progress after 3.5 weeks and issues arose with quality of work / Applicants told Respondent they no longer required services and offered part payment / Respondent threatened to remove all kitchen work unless full payment made / Applicants claimed Respondent broke into their home and ripped out kitchen work causing extensive damage / Applicants stated Respondent continued to threaten them that he would remove their house to satisfy the debt / Applicants sought declaration they were not liable to pay Respondent’s $14,149.66 invoice, and claimed $13,071.52 compensation / Held: Respondent did not use reasonable care and skill in installing kitchen, nor complete work within reasonable time / Respondent repudiated contract by breaking in and ripping out kitchen / Applicants not liable for Respondent’s invoices / Reasonable amount for cleaning up damage after break in was $500.00 / Applicants awarded $1,343.20 for …

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant bought kitchen tap from First Respondent / Kitchen tap began leaking and Applicant sought First Respondent to replace it / Second Respondent replaced Applicant's tap as provider to First Respondent / Applicant claimed installation cost from Respondents / Held: kitchen tap not fit for purpose due to leaking / Respondents remedied the failure of acceptable quality and fitness for purpose by replacing the tap / Tap installation cost was reasonably foreseeable as liable to result from the failure pursuant to the CGA / Respondents ordered to pay Applicant $120 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicant invoiced Respondent for demolition work including $3780+GST for asbestos removal and $20,900+GST for demolition of a house, foundations and driveway / Work site was shut down twice by authorities after complaints by neighbours / Respondent cancelled contract / Respondent claimed Applicant was responsible for failures that led to the site being shut down / Held: absence of evidence proving Respondent was justified in cancelling contract / Respondent breached contract by cancelling / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $16,192.00, being the adjusted invoice amount to reflect the work completed, and $1472.00 damages, being 10% of the invoiced amount to reflect lost profit on remainder of contract / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Applicant contracted Respondent to fix dysfunctional septic tank system at his home / Respondent gave cost estimate, but parties differed on whether this was to be “between $10K and $12K” or “between $12K and $14K” / No written quote was provided / Required work grew exponentially as serious unexpected problems were encountered / Respondent invoiced Applicant $29,123.09 / Applicant claimed he was not liable to pay more than original estimate / Respondent counter-claimed for outstanding invoices / Held: original estimate was not given in relation to problems subsequently discovered / As work progressed it must have been apparent to Applicant that work needed was not a $12K max job / Respondent should have given Applicant clearer warning about escalating costs / Fair to discount amount owed in recognition of confusion around cost / Applicant ordered to pay Respondent $25,050.87 / Claim allowed in part.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent provided Applicant a pre purchase inspection on a property she was interested in purchasing / Applicant purchased property on the basis that Respondent told her the property was a dry, well-built house / Later,  Applicant decided to replace the shower and discovered rot/damp under the shower area / Applicant claimed $30,000.00 in compensation from Respondent / Held: cannot be found on the balance of probabilities, that the leak beneath the shower could have reasonably been picked up in the pre purchase inspection / It cannot therefore be said the Respondent did not provide its services with reasonable care and skill / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant and Respondent were flatmates / Respondent was the head tenant / Dispute arose over the bond paid by the Applicant / Applicant claims $540 being 3 weeks rent. One week bond was paid to the former flat mate she replaced, and she was liable for the 2 week delay in finding a replacement flat mate / Held: text message evidence proves there was some confusion around the payment to the previous flat mate but ultimately it was done on instruction from the Applicant / Dispute over the bond caused the delay in finding a replacement flat mate / Delay was not due to the respondent / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Parties were in an relationship / Applicant planned a trip / Respondent agreed to take Applicant to the airport and look after her pets / Respondent did not take Applicant to the airport and she missed her flight / Applicant claimed for travel costs and kennel costs / Held: social arrangements unlikely to be legally enforceable unless parties demonstrate an intention to be bound by their promises / Promise was made but it fell short of being a contract / Applicant not entitled to sought order / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased house from Respondents / It rained heavily on settlement date, and Applicant found garage flooded, even though pump set up to mitigate flooding was running / Later, it again rained heavily and garage flooded again, along with lawn and half of driveway / Applicant claimed $30,000 to build a new garage at a higher level / Held: Respondents did not make misrepresentations regarding flooding / Respondents told Applicant land could have temporary pooling during heavy rains, and that pump worked well to prevent flooding / No evidence statements were untrue / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent to repair leak in her shower / A few months later Applicant discovered another leak / Applicant had leak assessed and it was found to be caused by the repair work to the shower / Applicant asked Respondent to come back and fix the issue but he did not do so / Applicant had since had damage repaired by other tradespeople / Applicant claimed $4,000.00 for the cost of repairs / Held: Respondent’s work was not carried out with reasonable care and skill / Respondent failed to remedy failure within reasonable time / Because Respondent failed to inform Applicant that he was working on behalf of a company, he was personally liable under the contract / Applicant presented evidence of repairs cost totalling $2,474.93, which Respondent was liable to pay / Claim allowed in part.

Consumer law / Contract / Applicant purchased electric vehicle from Respondent / Applicant promised unlimited free super-charging for as long as he owned the vehicle / Respondent changed the charging station technology making them non-compatible with Applicant's model / Applicant paid $540.01 to retrofit his vehicle to make it compatible with new charging stations / Applicant claimed for a refund for retrofit / Held: all super-charging sites still available to Applicant / Reasonable assumption that charging technology would change over time and upgrade costs would be necessary  / Applicant's contract with the Respondent included “unlimited free super-charging” but was silent as to upgrade costs / Upgrade costs cannot reasonably be implied as a contractual term / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicants inspected vehicle at Respondent’s premises / Purchase price was $12,000.00 / Applicants signed sale and purchase agreement which included statement that sale was conditional upon an appraisal of vehicle / Applicants paid $1,000.00 deposit / Appraisal found numerous defects with vehicle / Applicants notified Respondent they did not wish to proceed with purchase due to issues raised in appraisal / Applicants asked for their deposit back, but Respondent refused / Applicants claimed $1,000.00 refund of deposit / Held: Applicants  entitled to decline to buy car and have deposit back / Contract was conditional upon vehicle appraisal, which meant Applicants were not obliged to complete purchase if appraisal disclosed reasonable grounds for decision not to do so / Applicants had reasonable concerns and were justified in declining to proceed with purchase / Respondent ordered to pay Applicants $1,000.00 / Claim allowed.