Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent provided Applicant a pre purchase inspection on a property she was interested in purchasing / Applicant purchased property on the basis that Respondent told her the property was a dry, well-built house / Later,  Applicant decided to replace the shower and discovered rot/damp under the shower area / Applicant claimed $30,000.00 in compensation from Respondent / Held: cannot be found on the balance of probabilities, that the leak beneath the shower could have reasonably been picked up in the pre purchase inspection / It cannot therefore be said the Respondent did not provide its services with reasonable care and skill / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant and Respondent were flatmates / Respondent was the head tenant / Dispute arose over the bond paid by the Applicant / Applicant claims $540 being 3 weeks rent. One week bond was paid to the former flat mate she replaced, and she was liable for the 2 week delay in finding a replacement flat mate / Held: text message evidence proves there was some confusion around the payment to the previous flat mate but ultimately it was done on instruction from the Applicant / Dispute over the bond caused the delay in finding a replacement flat mate / Delay was not due to the respondent / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Parties were in an relationship / Applicant planned a trip / Respondent agreed to take Applicant to the airport and look after her pets / Respondent did not take Applicant to the airport and she missed her flight / Applicant claimed for travel costs and kennel costs / Held: social arrangements unlikely to be legally enforceable unless parties demonstrate an intention to be bound by their promises / Promise was made but it fell short of being a contract / Applicant not entitled to sought order / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased house from Respondents / It rained heavily on settlement date, and Applicant found garage flooded, even though pump set up to mitigate flooding was running / Later, it again rained heavily and garage flooded again, along with lawn and half of driveway / Applicant claimed $30,000 to build a new garage at a higher level / Held: Respondents did not make misrepresentations regarding flooding / Respondents told Applicant land could have temporary pooling during heavy rains, and that pump worked well to prevent flooding / No evidence statements were untrue / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent to repair leak in her shower / A few months later Applicant discovered another leak / Applicant had leak assessed and it was found to be caused by the repair work to the shower / Applicant asked Respondent to come back and fix the issue but he did not do so / Applicant had since had damage repaired by other tradespeople / Applicant claimed $4,000.00 for the cost of repairs / Held: Respondent’s work was not carried out with reasonable care and skill / Respondent failed to remedy failure within reasonable time / Because Respondent failed to inform Applicant that he was working on behalf of a company, he was personally liable under the contract / Applicant presented evidence of repairs cost totalling $2,474.93, which Respondent was liable to pay / Claim allowed in part.

Consumer law / Contract / Applicant purchased electric vehicle from Respondent / Applicant promised unlimited free super-charging for as long as he owned the vehicle / Respondent changed the charging station technology making them non-compatible with Applicant's model / Applicant paid $540.01 to retrofit his vehicle to make it compatible with new charging stations / Applicant claimed for a refund for retrofit / Held: all super-charging sites still available to Applicant / Reasonable assumption that charging technology would change over time and upgrade costs would be necessary  / Applicant's contract with the Respondent included “unlimited free super-charging” but was silent as to upgrade costs / Upgrade costs cannot reasonably be implied as a contractual term / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicants inspected vehicle at Respondent’s premises / Purchase price was $12,000.00 / Applicants signed sale and purchase agreement which included statement that sale was conditional upon an appraisal of vehicle / Applicants paid $1,000.00 deposit / Appraisal found numerous defects with vehicle / Applicants notified Respondent they did not wish to proceed with purchase due to issues raised in appraisal / Applicants asked for their deposit back, but Respondent refused / Applicants claimed $1,000.00 refund of deposit / Held: Applicants  entitled to decline to buy car and have deposit back / Contract was conditional upon vehicle appraisal, which meant Applicants were not obliged to complete purchase if appraisal disclosed reasonable grounds for decision not to do so / Applicants had reasonable concerns and were justified in declining to proceed with purchase / Respondent ordered to pay Applicants $1,000.00 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicant contracted Respondent to transport mobile home / Applicant paid part of the freight service invoice / Applicant sought order to clarify total cost owing / Held: Respondent's use of the word quote meant estimate / Applicant not liable to pay $2,602.97 extra from the estimated grand total previously informed / Applicant ordered to pay Respondent $18,711.24 / Claim allowed.

Tort / Trespass / Contract / Respondent issued Applicant three parking breach notices for parking in an apartment complex / Applicant’s son paid first notice ($95) / Applicant claimed $735 including a refund of $95.00 already paid / Applicant also claimed for an order that he was not liable to pay $640 in breach and administrative fees issued by Respondent / Held: Respondent did not have authority from body corporate to issue breach notices, infringement notices and additional fees it issued to the Applicant / Respondent must refund Applicant $95.00 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Tort / Conversion / Applicant was a member of the Respondent’s club / Applicant stored his pool cue in a locked parlour case at the club / Respondent did not hold record of who stored their cues in the club / New operators took over operation of club / New operators removed parlour cases and cues and stored them in their office / When Applicant went to use his cue he discovered it had been removed and was not in the office / Applicant claimed $780.00 from Respondent, $660.00 for a new cue and $120.00 for parlour case / Held: evidence indicated new operators did remove Applicant’s cue and parlour case / Unclear whether Respondent advised club members that their personal property was at risk if left at club / Applicant should be compensated for loss of his cue / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $395.00 and provide him with a parlour case / Claim allowed in part.

Consumer law / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicants planned overseas golfing trip and booked flights with Respondent / Due to the pandemic and border closures, Respondent cancelled the flights / Applicants were provided with flight credits of $4,994.33 for value of their booking, for travel by 31 December 2023 / Applicants attempted to book trip again and several emails were exchanged with Respondent, but suitable slights were not found / Respondent’s communication was unclear and did not answer Applicant’s question about what dates the group could be accommodated prior to the end of 2023 / Applicants claimed $4,994.33 / Held: Respondent’s communications amounted to misleading conduct / As a result of misleading communication, Applicants were never informed of dates when they could make their booking and use their flight credits / Applicants lost the value of those credits, being $4,994.33, and were entitled to that sum / Respondent ordered to pay $4,994.33 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased mower from Respondent / Front belt and brake cable broke soon after purchase / Whether Respondent misrepresented mower’s age and extent of servicing / Applicant claimed compensation / Held: insufficient evidence to prove misrepresentation of age of mower or lack of servicing / Claim dismissed.