Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant provided courtesy car to Respondent's daughter / Applicant claimed car suffered catastrophic engine failure / Applicant claimed $3,612.50 to replace car engine / Held: contract exists between Applicant and Respondent / Courtesy car provided because of original contract between Applicant and Respondent / Original car bought by the Respondent's daughter being repaired / Respondent's daughter did not cause damage to car / Respondent did not breach obligations by failing to return car in its original condition / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicant purchased airline tickets from Respondent airline / Flights cancelled due to COVID-19 restrictions and company restructure / Applicant sought refund of tickets / Respondent claimed it was not liable for refund as it entered voluntary administration / Held: deed of company arrangement did not bind New Zealand customers nor prevent them from seeking refund / New Zealand law applied / Respondent failed to provide accurate and complete information to its customers / New Zealand customers were not treated fairly by Respondent's flight policy / Respondent's flight policy was not fit for purpose / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $3,078.72 / Claim allowed.  

Contract / Applicant and Respondent are flatmates / Applicant paid $1,000 flat bond to Respondent as head tenant / Applicant left flat and claimed return of bond / Held: no agreement exists with regards to giving notice / Applicant did not breach any obligation to provide notice / Applicant entitled to full refund of bond / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,000 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicant engaged Respondent to reroof their commercially tenanted house / Reroofing rescheduled due to series of delays / Applicant's tenants present in building when Respondent went to do work / This posed as a health and safety hazard / Respondent claimed it was made clear building needed to be empty for duration of reroofing / Applicant subsequently contacted another roofing company / Applicants claimed $15,456.00 / Held: Respondent unable to prove they had communicated building needed to be vacant / Applicant justified in cancelling contract / Respondent should bear costs of scaffolding and freight / Respondent not liable to pay difference in contract price claimed by Applicant / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,748 / Claim allowed in part.

Negligence / Applicant’s son had collision with respondent / Applicants claim respondent is liable for collision as he entered lane from a give way controlled sideboard but failed to give way / Respondent claims other driver is liable because he failed to drive to the conditions / Held: not persuaded by applicant’s claim that the other driver bears some liability / Not enough to rely on a gap left by another vehicle / No evidence of contributory negligence / Damage consistent with description of collision and cost claimed for repair is reasonable / Outcome: claim allowed, respondent to pay applicants $7,261

Contract / Building Act 2004 / Applicant purchased property from Respondent / Prior to settlement, Applicant rented property from Respondent / Applicant provided Respondent with a list of defects / Respondent remedied some defects, but Applicant was not satisfied with painting, bathtub and paving stones / Applicant claimed $21,000.00 for cost of remedial work / Respondent counterclaimed $20,602.50 including for damage to reputation and reimbursement for services done outside warranty scope / Held: industry body report confirmed defects in painting workmanship / Damaged bathtub and footpath were defects / Respondent had more than reasonable time to remedy defects / Applicant entitled to $10,407.50 for remedial paint work, $875.00 for replacement bathtub, $1,660.60 cost of industry body report, and $700.00 for foot path blocks / Respondent ordered to pay $13,643.10 / Claim allowed in part, counter-claim dismissed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased car from Respondent / Respondent stated vehicle was in mint condition and came with mechanical warranty / After sale, warranty could not be transferred to Applicant, parties agreed Respondent would compensate Applicant $100 / Applicant queried if any major repairs had been carried out, Respondent advised vehicle had coolant issue repaired 10 days prior to sale / Coolant lights came on while Applicant was driving vehicle / Mechanic identified many mechanical issues / Applicant claimed refund of the purchase price of vehicle / Held: Respondent had duty to disclose recent major repairs / Evidence proved car was not in mint condition / Respondent mispresented car’s condition / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $5100 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003 / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased campervan from Respondent / Campervan’s engine blew up some days after purchase / Repairs cost $4304.74 / Applicant subsequently sold the campervan with camping equipment for a higher price / Applicant claimed cost of repairs / Held: Respondent was a motor vehicle trader / Campervan was not of acceptable quality under / Failure was of a substantial character / Respondent misrepresented campervan being mechanically safe and sound / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4304.74 / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant had a solar system installed at his house / Solar inverter broke and need replacing / Installer was in liquidation and new part was provided and installed by Respondent  / Applicant concerned that replacement inverter was a pre-owned part / Applicant sought compensation because replacement part was not the same as the original part / Held: Applicant not entitled to compensation / Applicant did not show anything wrong with replacement inverter / No evidence indicating why original inverter failed / No loss suffered / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Accident Compensation Act 2001 (ACA) / Applicant engaged Respondent for dental services / Respondent gave Applicant five fillings, Applicant paid $1,790 / Applicant had ongoing pain after dental work / Four fillings had been placed over active decay, had to be replaced / Applicant claimed $13,425.00 damages / Held: Respondent’s work in relation to four of the five fillings was not provided with reasonable care and skill and was not fit for purpose / Failure was of substantial nature / Respondent liable to refund Applicant price paid for four of the fillings / Applicant could not claim compensation for pain suffered following treatment, likely personal injury barred by ACA / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,432.00 / Claim allowed in part.

Negligence / Damages / Applicant and Respondent involved in vehicle collision / Applicant braked suddenly for pedestrian / Respondent following too closely and was unable to stop / Damage caused to Applicant’s car / Respondent disputed repair costs and pre-accident value of Applicant’s car / Applicant claimed repair costs / Held: repair costs proven as reasonable losses suffered as a result of collision / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $9,343.84 / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased new scooter from Respondent / Scooter did not have charging range as advertised / Applicant complained but Respondent only replied when Applicant left negative feedback online / Applicant claimed for refund / Held: Respondent failed to comply with obligations to remedy failure when given an opportunity to do so / Applicant entitled to reject goods / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $705 / Applicant ordered to make scooter available for collection by Respondent once payment has been made / Claim allowed.