Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged to carry out specialised cleaning job on Respondent’s home / Work  completed and invoiced for $3,153.05 / Payment made to Applicant for $2,000.00 / Respondent disputed outstanding balance of $1,153.05 as being an unreasonable price / Held: invoiced amount for specialist clean was a reasonable price / Comparable invoices for similar jobs carried out by Applicant were consistent in pricing with Respondent’s job / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,153.05 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicants entered sale and purchase agreement (SPA) to sell their home to Respondents / Respondents were unable to settle on Friday settlement date, and sale settled the following Monday / Applicants claimed $5392.38 for losses due to delayed settlement / Respondents disputed amount claimed as unreasonable / Held: Applicants entitled to claim costs for losses after settlement in accordance with clauses in the SPA / Applicants entitled to reasonable costs associated with breach of contract / Applicants entitled to $388.23 for 1 ½ hours mover’s waiting time, $2070.00 for storage and redelivery, $172.50 for additional legal expenses, $266.67 for food, pet boarding and additional petrol and travel, and $333.33 for meat and groceries that perished in moving truck / Respondents ordered to pay $3187.73 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Applicants and Respondent were neighbours / Respondent contacted Applicants about the possibility of removing trees located on Applicants' property near the boundary of their properties / Respondent withdrew previous offers to contribute to cost of removing trees / Applicants proceeded with the work / Applicants claimed tree felling cost contribution from Respondent including cost of removing and reinstating the fence / Held: no concluded agreement in respect of the amount that Respondent would contribute to the cost of the tree felling / Respondent not required to contribute to completed work cost /  Respondent also entitled to have fence reinstated to previous condition / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent for window painting / Quoted price was $4,538.77 / Applicant paid 50% deposit / At end of job, Applicant received invoice for $5,035.13, being $7,304.52 minus $2,269.39 deposit / Applicant paid $2,269.39 remainder of original quoted amount, and disputed remainder of invoice / Applicant also raised workmanship issues / Applicant claimed refund of $4,538.78 / Respondent counter-claimed $2,855.65 for outstanding invoice plus interest/costs / Held: parties agreed to $4,538.77 contract price / There was no clear agreement to vary contract price / Respondent’s work required remediation, therefore was not carried out with reasonable care and skill / Respondent had opportunity to remedy, but refused to do so due to dispute over invoice / Applicant entitled to cost of remedial work, $3,735.50 / Applicant not entitled to refund / Respondent ordered to pay $3,735.50 / Claim allowed in part, counter-claim dismissed.

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.