Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Applicants engaged respondent to provide styling for their wedding / Included flowers, decorations, tableware, Mandap and seating / Price including set up and pack down was $3000.00 / Applicants paid in full and expected styling team to set up between 8-11am on day of wedding / By 2pm only Mandap set up and nothing decorated / Venue able to provide substitute decorations at last minute / Applicants claim for a refund / Held: applicants entitled for damages for extra expense in decorations incurred on their wedding day but are limited to a claim of $3000.00 / Claim allowed, respondents to pay applicants $3000.00

Request for rehearing / Miscarriage of justice / Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 / Respondent did not attend hearing by teleconference / Respondent submitted unfamiliarity with the Disputes Tribunal and its processes / Respondent applied for rehearing / Held: appropriate to allow Respondent to be heard / Previous order [2023] NZDT 556 set aside / Rehearing granted.

Contract / Applicant ran poker events business / Applicant was approached by a person introducing himself as the Respondent’s manager / Presumed representative entered into a contract with Applicant to run poker nights at the Respondent’s premises / Applicant contacted Respondent for payment / Respondent stated their presumed representative never worked for them / Applicant claimed $4542.50, invoice for contract and time spent chasing debt / Held: Respondent did not enter into a contract with the Applicant / Person claiming to have an authority to bind the Respondent into a contract did not actually have it / Evidence by Respondent’s representatives established this / No authority established / Running an event at the premises not sufficient to bind the owner of the premises / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Respondent borrowed $29,000.00 from Applicant in loan agreement to purchase car with Respondent to make weekly repayments at unspecified amount / Respondent made several payments but $19,000.00 remaining to be paid / Applicant claimed $21,178.00, being unpaid loan principal, $550.00 default payment fee, $1,000.00 unpaid balance of previous loan, $448.00 mechanical work and $180.00 filing fee / Held: Respondent breached agreement by not paying loan by contracted date / Applicant entitled to repayment of principal / No evidence to prove other amounts claimed / Respondent to pay applicant $19,000.00 / Claim partially granted.

Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased vehicle from Respondent / Applicant believed vehicle was registered as a seven seater / Afterwards, Applicant discovered vehicle only had five seater capacity / Applicant claimed Respondent misrepresented seating capacity / Applicant claimed $1,500 for compensation and cost of converting vehicle / Held: LTSA information referring to vehicle as seven seater was likely in error / Respondent did not advertise vehicle as seven seater / Applicant had reasonable opportunity to enquire about seating capacity but failed to do so / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased flights through electronic booking website which included a transit flight / Transit country required a visa which Applicant was made aware of at the time of booking / Applicant went to check into his flight but was denied boarding because he did not have the required visa to transit / His fare was non-refundable and he suffered a loss of $1228.83 for which he now seeks reimbursement / Held: booking through an electronic terminal requires joint responsibility and care / Respond outlined repeatedly on their site that visas were his responsibility which Applicant accepted at the time of booking / Respondent did not fail to make the booking with reasonable care and skill / Claim dismissed.

Consumer Law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant had an appointment at Respondent to obtain driver's medical certificate / Applicant charged $98 and only paid $50 believing he was charged incorrectly / Applicant sought declaration he is not liable to pay $48 / Held: charges not clearly explained to Applicant by Respondent / Respondent charged reasonable price for services / Applicant required to pay invoice / Applicant ordered to pay Respondent $48 / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Chargeback / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent purchased three orders of fish from Applicant, totalling $1555.64 / Respondent claimed they did not receive any of the orders and were issued a chargeback by their card company / Applicant claimed Respondent fraudulently made chargeback request / Applicant sought $1,615.44 in damages, $1555.64 for fish and $60.00 in chargeback fees / Held: Respondent received packages from Applicant / Goods were not returned to Applicant / Respondent failed to communicate any request to remedy delivery of goods / Respondent not entitled to a refund through chargeback or otherwise / Respondent must repay Applicant $1,615.44 / Claim allowed.

Insurance / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant insured property with Respondent / Respondent changed structure of Applicant’s insurance policy / Applicant claimed Respondent’s service in relation to policy change was not provided with reasonable care and skill / Applicant claimed $8,974 damages plus interest / Held: issues encountered by Applicant during process of policy change were addressed by Respondent when raised / Respondent did not fail to provide service with reasonable care and skill / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant brought caravan from Respondent advertised as “watertight” / Caravan was subsequently found to have serious water ingress problem / Applicant seeks damages for required repairs / Respondent disputes there was rot / Respondent claims Applicant chose not to inspect the caravan which was sold “as is” / Held: Respondents advertisement of caravan as being “watertight” was a misrepresentation / The use of words “as is” do not exclude the Respondent from liability / Wording of the advertisement was an inducement / Applicant would likely have not entered into contract if they had known of its real condition / Respondent liable to pay Applicant $4,473.50 for repairs / Claim granted.

Tort / Trespass / Respondent trimmed trees on Applicant’s property in order to improve his view / Applicant claims work went beyond what was discussed and that Respondent damaged the trees / Applicant engaged arborist to fix damaged trees / Applicant claims $6,931.50 for arborist, removal of stumps and replacement of trees / Held: respondent could not prove he had authority to trim the trees to the extent he did / Trimming of trees beyond what was just inside boundary was trespass of Applicant's rights / Respondent to pay Applicant $1,851.50 which is sum paid to arborist / Claim partially granted.

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased and paid for installation of car stereo unit from Respondent / Car stereo subsequently stopped working / Applicant claims $995.00 in damages from Respondent / Held: Respondent failed to failure to exercise reasonable care and skill in installing car stereo / Car stereo not fit for purpose or acceptable quality / Respondent failed to remedy the fault within a reasonable time / Applicant is entitled to a refund of the full price of the unit ($565.00), the installation cost ($280.00) and value of missing hard drive ($150.00) / Applicant to pay Respondent total sum of $995.00 / Claim granted.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants purchased a puppy from Respondent for $1,300.00 / Shortly afterwards puppy showed health issues / Puppy was diagnosed with congenital hypodipsia / Puppy’s prognosis was poor / Estimated vet bills were several thousands of dollars / Puppy was euthanised / Applicants sought compensation / Held: puppy was not of acceptable quality / Decision to euthanise puppy was understandable and humane / Applicants entitled to compensation / Respondent ordered to pay $2,000.00, purchase price and vet bills / Claim allowed.