Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Applicant and Respondent were in a relationship / Applicant moved into Respondent's house / Applicant paid for a DVS to be installed, a survey, council fees, and a marketing report / House did not ultimately sell / Applicant claims $22,564 for these payments / Held: Tribunal has jurisdiction due to short length of relationship / No contract entered into as there was no intention to create legal relations / Applicant has assured Respondents that he would not be seeking repayments / Evidence that he was investing in the relationship rather than a contractual arrangement / No unjust enrichment to the Respondents / Claim dismissed

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent supplied and installed a gate automation system at Applicant’s property / Gate stopped working / Respondent established spider had entered unit, causing a short circuit / Respondent advised Applicant to spray insect repellent regularly to prevent problem reoccurring / Applicant paid $609.60 for service / Problem later reoccurred when slug entered unit and caused short circuit / Applicant paid $1,265.00 for repair / Applicant claimed box was not sealed properly, enabling insects to enter / Applicant claimed cost of both repairs, $1919.50 / Held: poor workmanship was not cause of insect infiltration / Evidence indicated insect infiltration may occur regardless of how unit was sealed / Applicant not made aware of insect repellent requirement prior to first incident, entitled to refund for first repair / Applicant was aware by second incident of need for insect repellent and missed a scheduled spraying / Applicant not entitled to refund …

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent to undertake pre-purchase inspection before purchasing house / Applicant complied with Respondent's recommendations for keeping roof in service / Approximately a year after purchasing the property, a leak in the roof caused damage to the kitchen ceiling, wall lining and cabinetry / Further investigation suggested entire roof was rusted and required replacement / Applicant claimed Respondent failed to alert them to poor state of roof, sought cost of roof replacement and kitchen repair / Held: photographs showed roof had deteriorated significantly since inspection / Respondent’s report indicated roof was old with a number of issues, including rust / Based on report, it would be reasonable for Applicant to expect further problems with roof / Applicant unable to prove Respondent failed to provide services without reasonable care and skill / Claim dismissed.

Loans / Parties were in a month long relationship / Afterwards, Respondent asked Applicant for loans / Later, Respondent asked Applicant for a larger amount, $3,485.00, for bond money / Applicant claimed he gave the loan amounts on the condition Respondent would repay them /  Respondent did not repay money / Applicant claimed $5,415.00 / Held: Respondent received money from Applicant as loans and not as gifts / Communication from Respondent indicated she understood she was being loaned money / Respondent ordered to pay $5,415.00 / Claim allowed.

Property / Fencing law / Fencing Act 1978 / Applicants and Respondent own adjoining properties / Storm damaged fence on property boundary / Applicant claimed damage posed imminent threat / Applicant asked property manager for Respondent to contribute without success / Applicant had contractor repair fence for $3500 / Applicant claimed for Respondent to pay a half of the cost / Held: repair work not required immediately / Section 16 of the Fencing Act does not apply / No agreement or fencing notice was issued to Respondent / Section 10 of Fencing Act not complied with / Respondent not liable to contribute towards cost of fence / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Parking infringement / Applicant issued breach notice by Respondent for parking at shopping centre “without permission in authorised vehicle only car park” / Applicant appealed breach notice with Respondent twice without success / Applicant filed claim with Tribunal / Respondent advised Applicant it had waived breach notice / Applicant claimed $500.00 for time spent appealing original breach notice and time spent on Tribunal claim / Held: original breach notice did not correctly state what terms and conditions Applicant had breached / Applicant spent approximately 30-45 minutes dealing with matter / Applicant did not suffer any financial loss requiring compensation from Respondent / Circumstances not met for awarding Tribunal costs / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a laptop from Respondent / Four years later the logic board failed / Applicant claimed laptop was not of acceptable quality / Applicant claimed $1,482.41 being the cost to replace the logic board / Held: laptop was not of acceptable quality / Evidence indicated life expectancy of a laptop was five years / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant to pay $1,482.41 / Claim allowed.

Consumer Law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased second-hand RTV from Respondent / RTV experienced issues / Applicant wanted to return RTV but Respondent refused / Held: Respondent met definition of "supplier" / Applicant met definition of "consumer" / Accumulation of defects amounted to a substantial failure / Applicant was entitled to cancel the contract / Applicant entitled to receive cash payment of $6,000 back plus $1500 for traded in and sold quad bike / Claim allowed

Contract / Respondent engaged Applicant to oversee restaurant fit out / Applicant claimed $29,431 for unpaid invoices / Respondent argued hours claimed in invoices were excessive / Respondent counterclaimed $30,000 for costs associated with incorrect window installation / Applicant argued issue with window was outside its contracted responsibility / Held: contract was for project management services / Three of five claimed invoices were excessive / $22,000 more fairly reflected value of hours charged / Given Applicant’s project management function, it did have responsibility for window / Applicant breached contract by failing to exercise reasonable care and skill by failing to promptly identify fault with window / Applicant liable for $16,596.35, one month’s rent while restaurant unable to open due to window issue / Respondent ordered to pay $5,403.65, being $22,000.00 outstanding invoices less $16,596.35 / Claim and counter-claim both allowed in part.

Contract / Respondent entered into an agreement to sell a property to Applicant / Offer from Applicant added two kayaks to chattels list / Respondent countersigned the offer then texted afterwards that kayaks belonged to their neighbour / Respondent offered to pay $200 for kayaks / Neighbour refused to let the Applicant have kayaks / Applicant claimed $1,200.00 in compensation from Respondent for not receiving kayaks / Held: Respondent was contractually obliged to pass ownership of the kayaks to Applicant / Damages were payable as Respondent was unable to pass ownership of the kayaks to Applicant / Respondent said kayaks were very old / Applicant bears the onus of proving his claim, but he did not provide any evidence of the market value of the kayaks / Respondent conceded that the kayaks would be worth $100.00 / No evidence presented that the kayaks had a higher value / Respondent ordered to pay $100 in compensation for failure to deliver kayaks / Claim granted in part.

Contract / Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant took his recently purchased car to Respondent for a custom wrap / Applicant paid $4,700.00 / Applicant unhappy with result and also claimed car was damaged / Applicant claimed $5,500.00 for repair costs and having wrap redone / Held: evidence accepted that Respondent failed to carry out wrap work with reasonable care and skill / Respondent’s failure was of substantial character / Applicant entitled to cancel contract and receive a full refund / Applicant’s estimated costs accepted / Respondent ordered to pay $5,500.00 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants booked Respondent to provide decorations for two pre-wedding events, paid $4,167.60 / Applicants claimed Respondent got date wrong for one of the events and arrived late with incorrect decorations / Applicants sought $5,000.00 from Respondent, comprising full refund for event, refund of three hours of venue hire and compensation for stress and inconvenience / Respondent counterclaimed $1,999.00 compensation for extra services provided and for stress / Held: Respondent had the wrong date and was not prepared for the event / Decorations provided were not what had been discussed / Full refund not appropriate as services were rendered but not what was agreed on / Partial refund awarded to indicate reduction of value of services / Respondent ordered to pay Applicants $808.48 / No contractual basis for Respondent to claim any payment from Applicants / Claim allowed in part, counterclaim dismissed.

Contract law / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Personal Property Security Register (PPSR) / Applicant signed lease agreement for two printers for 60 month term / Halfway through contract, Applicant wished to end the PPSR over the printers as it had sold its business / Respondent agreed to release first Applicant from the contract on the basis second Applicant would contract for the same printers for the remaining term of lease / Second Applicant later sought to be released early from the lease / First applicant claimed for a declaration it is not liable for the remaining period of the lease / Respondent counterclaimed for payment to the full lease period / Held: Respondent has proven it is entitled to be compensated for the unpaid rental as per the agreed contract / Applicant ordered to pay Respondent $5,848 / Claim dismissed.