Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Applicant signed a contract to provide entertainment services to Respondent / Contract included deduction of $1,000.00 bond from payments made to her / Contract provided that bond deductions if Applicant caused damage or loss / Applicant advised she would work up to 24 May  / Respondent confirmed that she would be rostered until that date / Applicant provided services from 2 May to 24 May / Bond money totaling $550 was deducted from her payments / Respondent refused to return bond / Held: law of contract applied /  Clear from emails that Respondent knew Applicant’s availability / Respondent confirmed in writing that Applicant would be rostered until that date / Effectively a fixed term contract until 24 May 2022 and no agreement for Applicant to resume work after that date / No resignation notice was required / Respondent not entitled to retain Applicant’s bond, and it must be returned / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $550 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Parties own neighbouring properties / Each has a claim against the other for damage to a shared metal driveway / Applicant sought compensation in respect of loss of a use of a strip of land, loss of trees and damage to a common area at the hands of another neighbour / Applicant holds Respondent liable for cost of remedial work / Held: no proven basis for either party to hold the other solely liable for the cost of remedial work on the driveway / Applicant is the owner of the land and everything on or under it / Respondent has no civil liability for damage other neighbour caused / Claim dismissed / Counter-claim dismissed.

Negligence / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / Applicant was driving vehicle past a stationary taxi on the side of the road / Second Respondent, in rear of taxi opened the right rear door hitting Applicant's car causing damage / Held: Second Respondent was negligent in opening his car door / Prudent passenger would have checked it was safe to open the door before doing so / First Respondent is not liable as she did not open the door / Claim against her is dismissed / Respondent must pay Applicant’s insurer $6850.22 / Claim granted.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent to supply and fit shade cloth / Earlier Tribunal decision ordered Applicant to pay Respondent unpaid invoice / Decision also found shade cloth not of acceptable quality / Respondent agreed to remediate shade cloth at own expense once it received payment / Applicant did not make payment by ordered date, eventually did so after Respondent engaged debt collector / Respondent did not remediate shade cloth / Applicant claimed $2000 / Held: Applicant’s failure to pay on time did not nullify Respondent’s obligations under CGA / Not equitable for Respondent to retain all monies paid to it / Applicant ordered to return shade cloth to Respondent, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2000 / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant bought satellite dome from Respondent to use during fishing trip / Satellite not designed for use in specific regions / Applicant claimed refund $2,499 / Held: Respondent engaged in conduct that was misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive / Satellite not fit for Applicant's purpose / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2,499 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) / Applicants engaged Respondent to build standard model of tiny home / Variations made to standard model and price / Applicants purchased heat pump from third party for $3,985.00 and sought variation to reduce price accordingly / Respondent refused as heat pump not included in standard model / Applicant claimed damages of $3,985.00 for misleading advertising / Held: Applicants failed to prove on balance of probabilities that Respondent engaged in conduct that was misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive or made false or misleading representations, ss 9 and 13(g) FTA / No promise made that heat pump would be included at set price / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged a contractor to construct a new concrete driveway at his property / Respondent was the concrete supplier / Soon after completion of the work, Applicant noticed areas of discoloration with the concrete / Applicant claimed discolouration was because of defects in the product supplied by Respondent / Applicant provided a quote totaling $24,688.20 to have to the driveway removed and replaced /  However, Applicant limited to the amount claimed in his application to $20,000.00 / Held: evidence indicated concerns with the driveway construction rather than the quality of the concrete / Applicant failed to establish that concrete was not of acceptable quality / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant contracted Respondent to collect and transport a boat and trailer for a prepaid fee of $1,400.00 / Whilst the Respondent was transporting the boat, it broke free from its trailer and landed on the road, severely damaging it / The Applicant’s insurer assessed the damage and declared the boat a total loss /  The insurer paid out the Applicant for the loss / The Applicant seeks a refund of the $1,400.00 transport fee from the Respondent / Held: the contract was “at owner’s risk” / The Respondent completed the contract and is not liable for the loss, therefore the contract fee is not refundable / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased ear buds from Respondent / Applicant claimed they were faulty / Respondent sent buds away to be checked / Buds were thoroughly tested, no faults were found / Respondent replaced inner ear of buds to ensure no ongoing concerns / Applicant asked for refund, Respondent refused / Held: buds were repaired within a reasonable time / Buds were fit for purpose and would be accepted by a reasonable consumer / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant purchased house / Respondent acted as vendors’ solicitor / Applicant brought claim regarding purchase against Respondent as did not have contact details for vendors / Some imprecision in how Applicant named Respondent in claim / Respondent claimed Applicant’s claim was frivolous / Applicant requested $500 costs award / Held: Applicant raised no legal basis for claim against Respondent / Dispute arose from Applicant’s contract with vendors / Claim could only be brought against vendors / High threshold for finding claim frivolous or vexatious not met in this case / Applicant not acting in bad faith / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants arranged to have their child’s 21st birthday at the Respondent’s restaurant / Applicants chose a menu and made a booking for 100 people at $50.00 each, plus a band for $1,500.00,  total of $6,500.00 / Applicants paid deposit when making booking and balance at a later stage / Applicants claimed band did not show up and seven of the menu items were not provided / Applicants claimed partial refund of $3,000.00. / Held: Respondent failed to carry out agreed services with reasonable care and skill / Respondent failed to ensure services were fit for agreed purposes / Failure was substantial and could not be remedied / Respondent ordered to pay $3,000.00 / Claim allowed.  

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased second-hand hearing aids and charger / Faults developed in both items / Items sent to Respondent manufacturer for repairs / Hearing aids were repaired under warranty, but warranty for charger had expired, Respondent charged $185.14 for repair / Applicant believed charger worth $400 new should have lasted longer / Applicant claimed for recovery of repair charge / Held: Applicant did not need to be original purchaser to bring claim against manufacturer / Reasonable consumer paying retail price would expect charger to last longer than 18 months / Charger failed within 18 months, therefore was not of acceptable quality / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $185.14 / Claim allowed.