Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

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.

Contract / Applicants’ rental properties were damaged by floods / Applicants made claim for repairs to Respondent, their insurer / Cover declined on basis damage to retaining wall was gradual damage therefore not covered, only some damage to fence was due to flood, and damage to garage was due to improper waterproofing installation / Applicants claimed $14,620.75, being $13,291.59 for repairs plus 10% inflation, plus $5,000 compensation for stress / Held: damage to retaining wall due to single accidental occurrence of flooding rather than gradual deterioration, therefore covered / Respondent to cover repairs to entire fence, not just 6m accepted by Respondent / Garage damage caused by flooding, insufficient evidence of waterproofing issue / Applicants entitled to $9,830.20 for retaining wall repair, $4,378.63 for fence repair, and $792.87 for garage repair / Claims for compensation for stress and for inflation unsubstantiated / Respondent ordered to pay $13,291.59 / Claim allowed in pa…

Tort / Negligence / Applicant and Respondent parked opposite each other in carpark / As they both went to leave, their vehicles came into contact / Applicant claimed $2,119.99 for damages caused to their car / Held: evidence inconclusive to establish Respondent caused the damage to the Applicant’s car / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Parties were involved in road collision between Applicant’s car and Respondent’s truck towing a wide-load trailer with an excavator / Applicant claimed $9,844.00 for repairs to her vehicle / Respondent counterclaimed $4,999.00 for lost earnings responding to claim against it / Held: Respondent’s vehicle was preceded by pilot vehicle and truck and trailer displayed signs and hazard warning flags / Pilot instructed Applicant to stop / Applicant failed to comply with direction to stop, and her decision to continue to advance to an unsafe position caused the collision / Respondent not responsible for collision / Respondent not entitled to costs / Claim and counter-claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant rented vehicle from Respondent / Vehicle had pre-existing damage at the left front bumper where black plastic had come off in part / Applicant returned car / Respondent found additional damage / Respondent tried to contact Applicant but Applicant never received communication / Applicant charged excess of $2000 / Repair cost was $729.15 / Applicant sought declaration in non-liability / Held: additional damage likely caused while vehicle was in Applicant’s possession / Not reasonable to charge Applicant $729.15 as some damage was pre-existing / Respondent to refund Applicant $513.52 / Claim allowed in part.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased an induction cooktop from Respondent / Applicant claimed cooktop cracked nine months later / Applicant approached Respondent who told him it was not deemed a manufacturing fault / Respondent stated damage was impact damage when something was dropped on cooktop / Respondent told Applicant replacement cook top would cost $1,283.00 / Applicant claimed $1,283.00 / Held: Applicant failed to prove there was an inherent fault with cooktop / Damage may have been result of iron skillet or something else being dropped on it / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Bus owned by Applicant was travelling down road when Respondent opened his car door into path of bus, causing damage to both vehicles / Respondent denied causing accident, claimed bus was speeding and driving too close to parked cars / Held: evidence showed bus was not speeding or driving too close to cars / Respondent did not check if road was clear before opening car door / Respondent breached duty of care by failing to pay adequate attention to oncoming traffic / Damage to Applicant’s bus was direct result of Respondent’s negligence / Respondent ordered to pay $2,170.63 for repairs / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant purchased pair of shoes / Applicant claimed refund and other compensation on basis that shoes were not of acceptable quality nor properly fitted, in breach of CGA / Held: Applicant was provided with shoes in requested sizes, and made her own determination that the shoes purchased fitted her / Shoe fitting service was provided with reasonable care and skill / Applicant failed to prove shoes were of defective quality / Tort of conversion satisfied but Applicant did not suffer loss as a result / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Money Claims Act 2016 / Respondent undertook work on roof at property owned by Applicant / Applicant claimed Respondent did not have authority to work on roof and should not have carried out work at time when storm was imminent / Applicant claimed for losses associated with entry of water into property / Respondent counterclaimed $3,625.37 for unpaid invoices / Held: Respondent was authorised to work on roof by Applicant’s son-in-law / Applicant’s son-in-law gave go ahead for work to begin the week before the storm / Respondent did not fail to exercise reasonable care and skill / All work claimed by Respondent should be paid / Applicant ordered to pay Respondent $3,625.37 / Interest of $176.17 to be added if payment not received by due date / Claim dismissed and  counterclaim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicants purchased a pedigree dog from the Respondent for breeding purposes for $3000 / Two years later the dog was diagnosed with genetic deformity / Applicants paid $14,000 in medical treatment bills which were  projected to cost a further $10,000 / Applicants claimed the medical costs together with the purchase price from Respondent / Held: no written contract entered into / Sale of the dog was subject to the guarantee of acceptable quality / The dog was not acceptable quality because she was not free from minor defects / Applicants entitled to compensation for loss of value of the dog and to be paid reasonable losses stemming from the failure / Applicants entitled to refund of purchase price / Applicants not entitled to costs of maintaining the dog’s health where those costs exceed the price of the animal / Respondent ordered to pay $5,979.88 / Claim allowed in part.

Trespass / Fencing Act 1978 / Applicants owned a property that adjoined on two sides with a property owned by the Respondents / The properties were divided by hedging down the driveway and by hedging, fencing and the wall of a garage down the back boundary / Respondents removed the existing hedging and fencing and built new fences / Applicants claimed $23,000.00 for replacement trees and planting / Respondents denied liability / Held: Respondents’ removal of the driveway boundary hedge and planting around the back boundary hedge amounted to a trespass on Applicants’ property / Respondents had already remedied removal of hedges by constructing new fence at no cost to Applicants / Appropriate to recognise Applicants suffered loss of enjoyment of their property due to trespass / Respondents ordered to pay Applicants $5,018.75 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Applicant new build plans from Respondent / Applicant was offered two kitchen designs by Respondent / Applicant opted for L-shape kitchen with other features / During inspection Applicant discovered kitchen was significantly different than plan / Applicant claims breach of contract / Kitchen design was a variation contract / Held: Respondent breached contract / Claim allowed / Respondent to pay Applicant $30,000.