Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant bought caravan from Respondent / Applicant discovered caravan was leaking / Applicant claimed compensation for repair costs and hiring caravan during repairs / Held: sale and purchase of caravan was private sale / Caravan's representation of excellent condition should be viewed in context of its age / Not proved to required standard that representations made by Respondent were incorrect / No misrepresentation and inducement / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant paid Respondent $16,795.00 for dental work / Dental work was only partially completed due to damage caused to Applicant’s teeth during extraction / Respondent subsequently ceased contact with Applicant / Applicant discovered Respondent was not licensed to practice / Held: Respondent's services were not provided with reasonable skill and care / Final result was not fit for purpose / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $17,996.00, reimbursement of cost paid and removal of failed implant / Claim allowed.

Restitution / Limitation Act 2010 / Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 / Respondent previously a shareholder, director and employed by Applicant / Applicant previously provided internet to Respondent's home / Applicant discovered later it was still paying direct debit for internet connection / Applicant sought to be reimbursed by Applicant for moneys paid to internet provider from 2016 to 2023 / Held: Applicant time-barred from claiming for payments made from 2016 to 2017 / Applicant unable to show that Respondent received any advantage from payments made to internet provider / Claim dismissed.

Damages / Issue estoppel / Applicant owned a car used by a senior employee / Applicant’s employee parked at a seaside car park / Respondent’s employee used a leaf blower nearby / Applicant claimed car’s paintwork was damaged by sand blown onto car / Claim was heard earlier but Applicant sought a rehearing / Applicant sought $30,000 for damage to the car / Held: claim resolved in earlier decision / Issue estoppel barred the claim, but Referee considered substantive merits of the claim / Leaf blower was low powered and not close enough to damage car’s paintwork / Claim dismissed.

Misrepresentation / Applicant purchased vehicle from Respondent for $600 / Applicant found evidence of water ingress in vehicle / Applicant claimed refund of purchase price plus costs / Held: Respondent used vehicle as a farm car until an incident where it got stuck on side in an overflowing creek / Respondent conveyed to Applicant no water ingress in the vehicle / Applicant relied on Respondent’s statement when agreeing to purchase vehicle / Applicant induced into contract by misrepresentation / Applicant entitled to damages / Total costs and losses incurred by Applicant comfortably exceeded amount claimed / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,000 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant ordered custom clothing from Respondent / Respondent failed to supply clothing by  agreed deadline / Applicant claimed $5,000.00 refund / Held: agreed deadline was essential term of contract / Applicant entitled to cancel  contract for failure to supply clothing / Applicant entitled to refund / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $5,000.00 / Claim allowed.    

Contract / Respondent approached Applicant to develop machine that could cut a block of firewood into kindling in one process / Applicant said he could produce such a machine, but would need to undertake research / After investigation, Applicant unable to construct requested machine / Applicant claimed $5,771.02 for research and development expenses, plus costs related to hearing / Held: claim depended on parties’ agreement and reasonable expectations / Respondent not obliged to cover Applicant’s research and development costs / If parties had agreed Applicant would investigate whether it was possible to develop machine suiting Respondent’s requirements and Applicant had warned it might not be possible, then Respondent would be liable for Applicant’s costs / However, Applicant reassured Respondent that he could develop machine, and Respondent reasonably relied on Applicant’s expertise / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer law / Applicant was engaged by Respondent to install insinkerator / Applicant invoiced Respondent $702.54 for the work / Respondent stated payment would be made upon receipt of warranty for the insinkerator / Applicant explained that Respondent needed to register online to obtain warranty, provided information required for her to do this / Respondent requested Applicant come and read serial number from insinkerator for her / Applicant offered times when it could attend, but was booked up by the time Respondent replied / Applicant claimed $702.54 for outstanding invoice / Held: Applicant installed insinkerator with reasonable care and skill / Applicant had provided Respondent with all reasonable assistance to obtain warranty / Applicant was entitled to full payment of invoice / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $702.54 / Claim allowed.  

Contract / Quantum meruit / Applicant engaged by Respondent for home renovation project / Applicant did not send formal building contract to Respondent until 9 months into preliminary work / Respondent’s bank and solicitor raised concerns with contract / Attempts to amend contract to satisfy all parties were unsuccessful / Respondent engaged a different builder / Applicant claimed, on a quantum meruit basis, $4600.00 costs for preliminary work / Held: parties engaged with each other on expectation contract would be formalised / Preliminary work was never to be charged directly / By not sending contract earlier, or entering agreement for payment for preliminary work, Applicant took risk that contract may not be finalised / Respondent did not simply change her mind, but was prevented from signing contract as bank would not approve it / Respondent not liable to pay any amount towards Applicant’s claimed costs / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant and Respondent owned properties with adjoining boundary / Respondents had fence erected / During fencing work, underground pipe on Applicants’ property was damaged / Applicants claimed tree on their property was also removed / Respondents arranged for repairs to Applicants drains, but Applicants unhappy with work / Applicants claimed $2000 compensation for estimated further plumbing work and cost of replacing tree / Respondents counterclaimed $1,500 for amount Applicants agreed to contribute to fencing work but failed to pay / Held: no evidence that remedial was not done to a professional standard and no compelling evidence that tree was cut down during fencing work / Applicant bound by agreement to contribute to fencing costs / Applicant ordered to pay Respondent $1,500 / Claim dismissed, counterclaim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants had kitchen cabinets installed by Respondent for $18,500 / Eighteen months later, veneer laminate on cabinets had begun to ripple and lift / Applicants requested issue be repaired under warranty / Respondent determined damage caused by moisture exposure, therefore not covered by warranty / Applicants claimed cabinets were not fit for purpose, sought $4000 for repairs / Held: Applicants did not sufficiently prove claim / Defects did not appear to be from failure of materials used on cabinet doors / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant provided workshops and coaching for self-development / Respondent agreed to attend workshops and coaching at a discounted price / Respondent could not pay total cost and asked to pay in instalments / Applicant claimed balance owing $2387.50 / Held: Respondent fully informed of programme, accepted offer to participate and made an initial payment / Respondent agreed to participate and to pay total cost / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2387.50 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Respondent reversed into Applicant’s parked car / Applicant and insurer claimed $2,333.24 for repairs / Respondent accepted responsibility for collision but queried extent of damage and cost of repairs organised by Applicant’s insurer / Respondent disputed one dent  which was higher than the rest of the damage, arguing she could not have caused in the collision / Held: dent was small and distinct from rest of the damage / Respondent’s arguments were reasonable / Not proven that disputed dent occurred in the collision / Cost of repairing disputed dent, $103.50, removed from total cost claimed for repairs / Other disputed costs reasonable on the evidence / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $2,229.74 / Claim allowed in part.