Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Applicant sold a property to Respondent / Respondent negotiated price reduction due to asbestos in the building / After settlement, Applicant found that Respondent was in negotiation with another party to sell the property / Remedial work for asbestos had not been carried out / Applicant claimed he should be reimbursed as he agreed to lower selling price on basis that remedial work would be carried out / Held: not unusual for prices to be reduced due to state of a property / Agreement between parties was for price reduction as asbestos would be costly to remove / Neither the negotiation nor the agreement required Respondent to remove asbestos / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Land Transport Act 1988 / Applicant’s and Respondent’s cars collided while going around a roundabout / Applicant’s car was hit from the rear / Applicant and his insurer claimed for $1,484.75, $1,326.05 for cost of repairs and $158.70 for rental costs / Respondent admitted liability for damages but disagreed with amount / Held: repairs costs were supported by evidence and approved by insurance assessor / Respondent liable in negligence to pay Applicant $1, 484.75 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased car from Respondent / Car had significant mechanical problems / Applicant said Respondent misrepresented condition of car / Applicant would like to cancel agreement and claimed for refund and servicing costs / Respondent said he sold car in good faith / Held: insufficient evidence to show that a misrepresentation has been made / No compelling evidence that Respondent knew there was something wrong with the car / Claim dismissed.

Tort / Conversion / Negligence / Impounding Act 1955 / Contributory Negligence Act 1947 / Applicant and First Respondent had neighbouring farms / Applicant operated a deer velvet breeding operation / Applicant's deer strayed unto First Respondent's farm / First Respondent ordered other Respondents to shoot the four deer that strayed on his farm / Applicant claimed $11,500 for the cost of replacing the deer / Held: insufficient evidence to prove all four of shot deer belonged to Applicant / Only two of the hinds had ear tags indicating ownership by Applicant / First Respondent solely respondent for the loss of the deer because he instructed the other Respondents to shoot them without informing them that some of the deer had ear tags / Contributory negligence defence generally not available for an intentional wrong such as conversion / Applicant did not breach duty of reasonable deer farmer by allowing his deer to escape / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $5,000 / Claim allowed in par…

Contract / Applicant booked travel on a flight with Respondent / Applicant missed Respondent’s flight due to travel delays / Applicant purchased ticket with different airline for US$559.94 / Applicant claimed cost of $559.94 airline ticket / Held: Applicant’s contract with Respondent was for the flight only / It was Applicant’s responsibility to ensure booked flights were suitable for her purposes / Applicant’s inability to get to Respondent’s flight on time was not Respondent’s fault / No breach of contract established / Applicant not entitled to compensation / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicant purchased two tickets for a concert for $356.30 / Tickets were later advertised at a special price of $99.00 / Applicant claimed that when she bought the tickets she asked if they were the cheapest price available / Applicant claimed $203.30, being the difference between the price she paid and the discounted ticket price, plus filing fee / Held: no guarantee made when Applicant purchased tickets that they would be lowest price / No law prohibiting promotion of subsequent discounts for an event / Respondent did not engage in misleading or deceptive conduct / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Collision occurred in Applicant’s driveway resulting in damage to her car / Applicant stated Second Respondent was responsible as he was driving Applicant’s vehicle, which collided with a pole / First Respondent is Second Respondent’s mother / Applicant claimed for car repair costs / Held: Second Respondent admitted crashing Applicant’s vehicle / Second Respondent had attempted to drive Applicant’s car without her permission / Second Respondent’s liability established / No grounds to impose vicarious liability on First Respondent / Second Respondent ordered to pay $3,114.19 for car repairs / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Insurance law / Subrogation / Respondent collided into the rear of Applicant’s car / Applicant’s car was insured, Respondent’s car was not / Insurance company wrote off Applicant’s car / Insurer sought recovery of money from Respondent / Held: Respondent liable for damage to Applicant's car / Cost of repairs claimed by insurer are substantiated / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $10,299.15 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Property Law Act 2007 / Applicant leased premises to Respondent / Applicant claimed Respondent was liable for rent and other expenses under lease, reducing claim to Tribunal’s jurisdictional limit of $30,000 / Respondent claimed Applicant failed to provide watertight premises, unreasonably withheld consent to lease assignment / Respondent claimed Applicant liable for $82,000 damages, reduced counterclaim to $30,000 / Held: parties had negotiated a reduction of premises to make rent more affordable for Respondent / Parties did not come to agreement about new rent / Reasonable for reduction of rent in proportion to reduction of floor space / Respondent liable for $15,644.35 rent arrears / Respondent liable for $14,901.15 in other amounts owing under lease / Insufficient evidence for Respondent’s counterclaims / Respondent ordered to pay $30,000.00 / Claim allowed and counterclaim dismissed.

Consumer Law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant contracted Respondent to repair blown head cylinder / Respondent provided quote for $3,000.00 / Respondent repaired head cylinder and carried out further repairs / Respondent charged Applicant $8,668.99 for repairs / Applicant claimed for return of $4,999.00 paid for unauthorised repairs / Held: repairs not authorised / Terms of contract were to only repair head cylinder and Respondent carried out further repairs without gaining authorisation from Applicant / Consumer not liable to pay more than reasonable price for service, s 31 CGA / Respondent to pay Applicant $4,643.99, being total amount minus reasonable cost of repair / Claim allowed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant bought car from Respondent / Applicant experienced issues with car: warning light came on, emitted smoke and burning smell / Respondent refurbished battery but could not identify any other issues / Applicant unhappy with outcome and refused to collect car from Respondent / Applicant claimed refund / Held: Respondent prepared to remedy and did remedy the fault / Applicant cannot reject car and claim refund / Applicant ordered to collect vehicle / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant operated museum which needs painting / Applicant accepted quote from Respondent who is a painter / Applicant paid $6,969 deposit to Respondent / Respondent did not complete work and was uncontactable / Applicant sought deposit refund / Held: Respondent repudiated contract by making it clear through his actions that he did not intend to carry out his obligations under the contract / Applicant entitled to cancel contract / Appropriate to grant relief of full deposit refund / Applicant received no benefit from minimal work from Respondent / Applicant incurred significant inconvenience as a consequence of Respondent’s failure to perform contract / Respondent ordered to pay $6,969 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant hired car from Respondent / Respondent's business was closed on date of return / Applicant instructed to return car to petrol station in front of Respondent’s premises / Car was damaged when Respondent picked it up / Respondent deducted $2,400 for the damage from Applicant’s bank account, without informing her / Applicant claimed repayment of $2,400 as she did not cause the damage / Respondent claimed car was not returned to their premises so Applicant remained liable for damage / Held: Applicant’s return of car per Respondent’s instructions deemed as delivering car to Respondent / Damage likely caused by third party after Applicant returned car / Clause in contract allowed Respondent to deduct monies for damage without proper process for dispute resolution or investigating liability to be disregarded / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2,400 / Claim allowed.