Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Respondents sold their property to Applicant / Later, when Applicant was selling the property, a potential purchaser discovered renovation completed when the Respondents owned the property did not have a Code of Compliance (COC) / Applicant had two pending offers on the property / Applicant lost the higher offer and the other offer was reduced due to COC information /  Applicant agreed to sell the house without the COC or Certificate of Acceptance (COA) for a reduced value / Applicant claimed $30,000.00 from Respondent for loss of value of higher offer due to no COC and the final sale price / Held: Respondents accepted that they unknowingly sold the property to the Applicant without the required COC / That was an innocent misrepresentation / Applicant not entitled to claimed $30,000.00 / Applicant had opportunity to obtain a COA and decided not to / Applicant entitled to compensation that would rectify term that was broken had it been discovered at time of her purchase / Com…

Property / Personal property / Applicant claimed for personal property to be returned by Respondent / These items include a sofa, washing machine, and microwave / Held: Respondent provided evidence of payments made to Applicant for the specific items / Insufficient evidence to prove that Respondent's owe the Applicant for items / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent to do a painting job / Work was complete and Applicant was invoiced / Applicant objected to paying full amount challenging the number of hours billed / Applicant claimed non-liability / Respondent claimed quote was a fixed price quote and hours were only estimated / Respondent noted number of hours was greater than Applicant's estimate due to required preparation work  / Respondent stated total number of hours did not diverge too much from the quote document / Respondent counterclaimed amount outstanding,  agreed at the hearing to be $3,081.78 / Held: price in the contract was clearly fixed and hours required were expressed as “approximate” / Applicant required to pay $3,081.78 to Respondent / Claim dismissed and Counter-claim granted.

Negligence / Applicant’s truck was driving on single tracked road when it met a ute driven by Respondent driving in other direction / Applicant stopped / Respondent did not stop and collided with Applicant’s truck / Truck was repaired for $12,747.36 which Applicant and its insurer now claimed from Respondent / Respondent denied liability on basis truck should not have been travelling on the road, and on basis Applicant’s insurer had informed him it would not pursue costs against him / Held: Respondent failed to take reasonable care, in particular by driving too fast to be able to stop without colliding with oncoming traffic / No contribution by Applicant to collision / Applicant’s insurer was not estopped from bringing claim due to representations made to Respondent / Repair costs reasonable / Respondent ordered to pay $12,747.36 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Tort / Property / Compensation / Parties had joint ownership of three-bedroom house / Property sharing agreement (PSA) resulting from previous court proceedings did not resolve conflict between parties / Applicant claimed $30,000 compensation for breaches of PSA / Held: Tribunal has no jurisdiction to make an award for any breach of the PSA already determined by the District Court / Respondent breached PSA by not paying rent during time the property was used by his family / Respondent and his agents caused damage to property / Compensation for economic loss arising from trespass not considered / Applicant entitled to compensation for rent and damage to property / Claim allowed.

Contract / Insurance / Applicant involved in vehicle accident / Third party drove into the rear of Applicant's car / Applicant claimed full insurance from Respondent / Held: third party did not negligently collide with Applicant's vehicle / Accident due to unforeseen medical evident / Applicant can bring a claim against the third party but this is likely to fail / Claim withdrawn.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased flooring product from Respondent for installation in tiny homes / Problems arose with flooring in three of ten homes / Respondent’s manufacturer declined to address issues under warranty due to moisture readings obtained in each location in excess of warranty tolerances / Applicant claimed there was a product defect and product descriptions were inaccurate and/or misleading / On a goodwill basis, Respondent offered replacement product and $7000 credit, which Applicant accepted, albeit having misunderstood wording of offer proposed / Held: parties reached a binding settlement / Necessary elements of a binding contract were present in the goodwill offer made by Respondent and acceptance by Applicant / No further claim by Applicant was possible / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased vehicle from supplier / Years later, vehicle was found to have an oil leak / Applicant advised to return it to supplier / Supplier assessed vehicle and quoted $2,599.55 to repair seal / Applicant considered that a four year old vehicle should not need a seal replacement and claimed vehicle was not of acceptable quality / Supplier since been removed from companies register / Applicant brought claim against Respondent, who she believed was standing in the shoes of the supplier / Held: Applicant needed to show link between supplier and Respondent, such that Respondent was responsible for guarantees / Insufficient evidence that Respondent purchased anything more than the supplier’s customer database / Applicant failed to show she was entitled to enforce guarantees against Respondent / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Applicant’s vehicle was hit by Respondent’s vehicle at a roundabout / Applicant claimed $3,252.34 for damage caused and cost to hire a private investigator to obtain Respondent’s address / Held: Respondent was in lane designated for a right turn only, but turned left into Applicant’s vehicle, causing damage / Repair cost was $3,464.84 / Respondent had agreed to cost and made $500.00 payment / Respondent liable for balance of $2,964.84 / Respondent’s conduct in giving Applicant an incorrect address had delayed proceedings /  Applicant entitled to claim cost incurred of hiring private investigator ($287.50) so proceedings could be brought to Tribunal / Respondent ordered to pay $3,252.34 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicant purchased travel insurance policy from Respondent / While overseas, Applicant’s tooth broke / Applicant made travel insurance claim to cover cost of dental care / Claim declined / Applicant claimed $1,999.00 as contribution towards dental costs / Held: insurance contract stated dental treatment would be covered if it was for relief of sudden and acute pain, or as a result of damage to sound and natural teeth caused by injury / Applicant’s tooth broke during flossing after eating some nuts / Cause did not meet definition of injury in insurance policy but pain experienced was covered / No evidence to suggest affected tooth had deterioration or decay, therefore not excluded from cover / Respondent breached contract by declining Applicant’s claim / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,999.00 / Claim allowed.

Immigration / Interest on Money Claims Act 2016 / Applicant referred to Respondent by a friend for assistance with partnership visa application / Applicant transferred $13,000 to Respondent for that assistance / Applicant claimed return of money due to no progress on immigration matters / Held: no evidence that Respondent provided assistance that was of any value or benefit to Applicant / Respondent not a licensed immigration adviser / Full refund with interest due / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $8,287.95 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Applicant attended Respondent’s site to carry out work / Applicant was directed to park in a particular spot while unloading their tools / While parked, a concrete aggregator inadvertently overloaded and spilt its content onto Applicant’s vehicle, causing damage / Applicant’s insurer claimed $7,776.07 for repair costs / At hearing, Respondent questioned whether Applicant had parked at the spot longer than it took them to unload tools / Held: Applicant was told where to park by Respondent’s manager / No specific timeframe for unloading tools was given / Respondent had duty of care to protect Applicant from foreseeable risks of harm / Duty was breached when aggregator was overloaded / Damage caused by the spillage of aggregate was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of overloading aggregator / Respondent liable for reasonable costs of repairing damage to Applicant’s vehicle / Respondent order to pay $7,776.07 / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased electronic items on layby / Applicant claims most items were faulty / Applicant made a second purchase of a television / Television developed a fault and Applicant contacted supplier / Supplier agreed to replace television / Applicant moved to new address and provided this to the supplier / New television did not arrive / Held: a reasonable amount of time to remedy had expired by the time Applicant changed address / Applicant entitled to reject the television which he did by stopping payments / Supplier to refund $2,100.00 to Applicant / Claim allowed.