Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Res judicata / Issue estoppel / Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) / Applicant purchased commercial property from Respondent based on misrepresentations made by estate agent / Previous Disputes Tribunal decision ordered Respondent to pay Applicant $30,000 / Applicant made complaint to Complaints Assessment Committee (CAC) / Agent found guilty of unsatisfactory conduct by CAC and fined $500 / Applicant sought $30,000 from Respondent / Whether previous decisions were final and binding / Whether Applicant’s right to remedy for a breach under FTA was not resolved by previous decision and no issue estoppel arises / Held: CAC considered tribunal of competent jurisdiction / Issue estoppel was therefore raised preventing Disputes Tribunal from reconsidering issues / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant bought vehicle from Second Respondent / Applicant had an accident using Second Respondent’s courtesy vehicle / Second Respondent claimed Applicant liable for courtesy car repair cost / Since taking possession, Applicants sought to return vehicle to the Second Respondent due to intermittent starting problems / Held: vehicle not of acceptable quality due to ongoing problem that is difficult to diagnose and fix, and causing serious inconvenience and stress to Applicants / Applicant can reject and obtain full refund / Second Respondent ordered to pay Applicants $14,500 / Applicants not liable to pay any costs relating to Second Respondent’s courtesy car / Claim against Second Respondent allowed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent engaged the Applicant to construct a driveway for his new home / After work was completed the Applicant invoiced the Respondent $30,111.60 / Respondent was unhappy with the work done and only paid $13,800.00 / Applicant claimed $18,818.00, outstanding invoice amount and related construction costs / Held: invoice of $30,111.60 was correct amount for work completed / Evidence indicated that Applicant failed to carry out work with reasonable care and skill / Respondent permitted to cancel contract as failure by the Applicant was of a substantial character / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant filed insurance claim with Respondent for damaged car / After investigation, Respondent declined Applicant’s claim and cancelled his insurance policy / Applicant claimed $15,000.00 toward cost of repairing car and refund of $558.27 towing costs / Held: collision did not occur as described by Applicant / Applicant breached contract with Respondent by giving false information about collision / Respondent entitled to refuse claim and cancel contract / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Applicant purchased coffee machine from Respondent for $682.72 / Coffee machine was advertised as being in great condition and good working order / Applicant stated that coffee machine did not work / Respondent stated coffee machine was operational when it was sent to Applicant / Held: issue with coffee machine likely result of how it was used prior to purchase by Applicant / Coffee machine advertised as being in good working order when that was not the case / Respondent liable to pay estimated repair cost of coffee machine / Respondent ordered to pay $500.00 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Respondent was engaged to install fibre connection at Applicant’s home / Applicant was unhappy with work, as model of terminal installed by Respondent meant Applicant’s communications cabinet door did not shut when terminal was plugged in / Applicant claimed Respondent breached contract, failed to provide services with reasonable care and skill, and engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct through unfair trading practices / Applicant claimed $29,427.00 / Held: services were provided with reasonable care and skill / No breach of contract / No evidence of misleading and deceptive conduct or unfair trading practices by Respondent / Connection was installed correctly / Cabinet and power plug were Applicant’s property, not within scope of Respondent’s work / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased car battery from Respondent for $2,651.20 / Battery came with 2 year, 60,000km warranty / Applicant later reported faults with battery and took car to Respondent to investigate / After several attempts at repair, car battery still failed / Respondent offered $600.00 compensation / Applicant refused offer and demanded full refund / Applicant claimed $8,000.00 for refund of battery purchase and related costs and losses / Held: warranty created reasonable expectation that battery would last for 2 years and/or 60,000km / Battery failed after 43,000km and 17 months / Battery was not of reasonably acceptable quality / Due to disposal of battery, Applicant lost right to reject battery and claim full refund / Applicant entitled to compensation for reduction in value of battery and nominal damages / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,042.34 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 / Applicant contracted Respondent to replace parts of the roof of his restaurant and to install new rain heads / Respondent completed the work for $11,147.31 / Applicant only paid $1000.00 / Applicant requested a declaration of non-liability / Applicant claimed the restaurant leaks and suffered water damage but did not provide any proof / Applicant stated remedial work would cost between $2,500.00 - $3,000.00 / Held: Applicant not proven that he should not pay for the work he contracted for / Applicant's request for a declaration of non-liability failed / Applicant ordered to pay outstanding contract balance of $10,147.31 / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicants saw Respondents' bar advertised for sale for $20,000.00 / Applicants claimed they discussed a trial period with the Respondents and paid a $10,000.00 deposit / Parties discussed sale of the bar for $20,000.00 / Following the trial, Applicants declined to proceed with the sale, and requested deposit back / Respondents refused to refund bond / Applicants claimed $26,947.27 for bond refund and associated business costs / Respondents counter-claimed $8,400.00 for training time and for remainder of purchase price / Held: no agreement reached between the parties due to lack of certainty about what was being sold for there to have been a contract formed / Respondents ordered to refund Applicants the $10,000.00 bond / Applicants not entitled to claim additional costs / Respondents not entitled to charge for training time / Claim allowed in part and counter-claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant gave Respondent, his friend of 10 years, $10,000 to help him buy a house / Applicant claimed $8,600 unpaid loan balance / Respondent acknowledged the money was a loan, but denied he was required to repay it, claiming he had made several payments to Applicant offsetting loan balance / Held: the $10,000 was a loan which had to be repaid / Respondent breached agreement by failing to repay balance of $8,600 within reasonable period of time / Respondent ordered to pay $8,600 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Civil Aviation Act 1990 / Applicant booked an international flight on Respondent’s airline / Flight did not depart due to engineering problems / Applicant was rebooked on flight the next day, but his visas had expired and he was not permitted on plane / Applicant sought $4,000.00 in compensation for additional expenses incurred due to cancelled flight / Held: Respondent did not breach its contract with Applicant / Respondent was allowed to postpone flights for engineering issues / Respondent rebooked Applicant on next available flight and refunded his fare when he could not travel / Applicant was responsible for obtaining correct visas knowing that delays may occur / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant purchased laptop from Respondent / Six years later, laptop developed a fault / Applicant had laptop investigated, was told it was no longer under warranty and was advised to buy a new laptop / Applicant sought an order that Respondent was liable to pay him the cost of his new laptop, $3,799.00, and the $99.00 fee he was charged to assess the problem, plus interest / Held: laptop had functioned well for just over 6 years before fault developed / Reasonable consumer would consider six years a reasonable period for laptop to last / No breach of CGA / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Respondent approached Applicant about having a billboard placed at its premises / Applicant provided Respondent with estimated costs for gaining resource consent / Respondent replied saying “yes please proceed the application” / Applicant claimed $8,790.17, being three unpaid invoices plus Tribunal filing fee / Respondent accepted owing 50% of one invoice, but disputed all other charges / Held: it was a term of the contract that Respondent would pay 100% of the costs of the resource consent / More likely than not that Respondent was to pay for the traffic and urban reports required for the consent application / Applicant was not responsible for advising Respondent it would need its landlord’s consent / Applicant entitled to all invoiced costs, but unable to claim Tribunal fee / Respondent ordered to pay $8,610.17 / Claim allowed.