Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Negligence / Land Transport Act 1988 / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / Parties involved in road collision when Respondent tried to move into lane in which Applicant was travelling / Both vehicles were damaged / Applicant and his insurer claimed $2,858.19 from Respondent for cost of repairs to Applicant’s ute / Held: Respondent failed to give way and moved from his lane without due care / Respondent breached duty as driver to take care not to harm anyone else’s property, and was responsible for damage caused / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $2,858.19 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Respondent occupied room in Applicant’s house as a boarder / Agreed Respondent would clean his own bedroom and bathroom / Around time Respondent was moving out, Applicant entered room and found carpet substantially destroyed by carpet moths / Applicant said carpet and walls were covered in moths, cocoons and eggs / Applicant obtained quote for replacing carpet of $1,255.00, spent $67.96 on chemicals to treat room, and engaged cleaners for $230.00 to fumigate house / Applicant claimed Respondent responsible for damage as he had neither kept room clean nor taken action when infestation appeared / Held: damage caused by Respondent’s failure to clean carpet as he was obliged to do under parties’ agreement / Applicant had no choice but to replace carpet / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,552.96 / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant bought laptop from Respondent for $3,064.75 with a three-year extended warranty / Screen failed after warranty expired / Respondent declined to provide remedy because warranty had expired / Applicant considered laptop should have lasted seven years / Applicant claimed for compensation / Held: laptop cannot be regarded as reasonably durable / Laptop did not comply with consumer guarantee of acceptable quality / Respondent ordered to pay $1,751.28, calculated on estimated expected life of laptop / Claim allowed.

Damages / Contract / Applicant claimed Respondent damaged Applicant’s soundbar while at her home as a guest / Applicant claimed she had a contractual agreement with Respondent not to touch the soundbar, TV or remotes / Respondent denied liability / Applicant sought $629 for cost of a new soundbar and TV specialist service / Held: insufficient evidence to prove Respondent caused damage / No evidence of contractual agreement, which in any event would be an unenforceable promise / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant’s wife took her car to the Respondent to repair a chip in her car windscreen / Applicant’s wife was quoted $100 to repair the chip / When the Respondent was repairing the windscreen it cracked / Applicant’s wife was advised that she would need to replace the windscreen and was quoted $1,022.00 / Respondent claimed they advised there was no guarantee the chip repair would be successful and a windscreen replacement would be necessary if the chip cracked / Applicant sought $1,090 in compensation to replace the windscreen / Held: Respondent took reasonable precautions when attempting to repair windscreen / Applicant’s wife was advised that the chip repair might not work / Respondent did reasonably disclose the consequences of a repair failing prior to the start of the procedure / Service provided by Respondent was reasonable / Respondent took all precautions and informed the Applicant’s wife appropriately / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Contract / Duress / Respondent managed Applicant’s rental property / Applicant alleged Respondent acted negligently by giving her poor advice, resulting in loss of three weeks and one day’s rent / Applicant also alleged she agreed to an early exit for the tenants under duress / Applicant claimed $2495.36 / Held: after Applicant attended property without notice, tenant threatened to bring claim to Tenancy Tribunal / Respondent’s advice to endeavour to mitigate damages through early termination, rather than face potential consequences in the Tenancy Tribunal, was fair and reasonable, not poor advice / Applicant did not agree to early exit under duress / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Respondent crashed his vehicle into large cantilever gate at entrance of Applicant’s premises / Respondent had been at a car meet and did a burnout / Respondent saw police arriving and drove away to avoid getting in trouble / It was dark and raining and Respondent didn’t see Applicant’s gates / Applicant and its insurer claimed $17,402.66 as contribution to repair costs / Held: Applicant’s gates were there to be seen / Respondent breached duty of care as a driver by hitting gates and causing damage, and was responsible for repair cost / From Respondent’s evidence it appeared he was most likely distracted by looking in rear view mirror to check if police were following him / Repair costs were reasonable / Despite repair, gate was not back to standard it was prior to damage / Respondent lucky Applicant did not insist on full replacement / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $17,402.66 / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent engaged Applicant to establish new mooring for his boat / Applicant noted challenges due to boat’s dimensions, but agreed / Applicant submitted application for new mooring, Council approved it / Applicant invoiced Respondent $6,704.63 / During cyclone, boat slipped mooring and went aground / Applicant claimed for unpaid invoice / Respondent counter-claimed for repair costs / Held: high risk of boat grounding at new mooring / Applicant met duty to exercise reasonable care and skill by informing Respondent about mooring options and depth issues / Applicant entitled to allow Council to exercise authority to determine whether site and mooring were suitable / Applicant entitled to payment of quoted price / Not proven that Applicant had any liability for damage to boat / Respondent ordered to pay $6,704.63 / Claim allowed and counter-claim dismissed.

Contract / Parties involved in family dispute / Applicant claimed $19,850 for vehicle purchase, turntable, course registration fee and flight fees for her Respondent son / Respondent counterclaimed $30,000 for rent / Held: Applicant gave money to her son / No binding agreement to repay money / Applicant gifted money as part of mother-son relationship and at the time Applicant was not expecting repayment / No evidence provided to support counterclaim / Claim and counterclaim dismissed.

Consumer law / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Respondent ran sticker collecting promotion, where consumers could exchange specific number of stickers collected for free kitchenware / Respondent ran out of stock before Applicant was able to exchange his stickers / Applicant claimed $125 ($80 for stickers and $45 Tribunal filing fee) from Respondent, plus an unspecified value in punitive damages to be paid to charity / Held: Respondent did not engage in conduct that was misleading or deceptive or that was likely to mislead or deceive, or “bait” advertising / Reasonable quantities of the kitchenware were available, with stock only becoming low at end of promotion / Respondent’s messaging was clear that promotion was “while stocks last,” encouraging consumers to redeem stickers early / Claim dismissed.

Trespass / Applicant parked her car in a car park while visiting a bakery / Applicant later received a reminder letter from Respondent informing of an earlier parking breach notice for $95 and further $75 charge for non-payment / Respondent continued to charge administration/recovery fees of $75 every two weeks / At time of filing claim, Applicant had paid original $95 and had requests for payment from Respondent for $325 / Applicant sought order she was not liable for the $325 / Held: insufficient evidence that Applicant trespassed on private property / Respondent not entitled to charge Applicant for parking where she did / Applicant not liable for $325 fees / Respondent ordered to refund $95 paid by Applicant / Claim allowed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant agreed to purchase caravan from Respondent for $26,000.00, paid $1000.00 deposit / Applicant claimed caravan was delivered with faults / Respondent fixed leaky sink but Applicant claimed electrical faults remained / Applicant cancelled contract / Applicant claimed Respondent misrepresented caravan by not disclosing faults, sought refund of $1000 deposit / Held: Respondent did not misrepresent caravan / Respondent did not breach contract / Applicant breached contract by cancelling without right to do so / Respondent entitled to $650 damages for resulting loss / Balance of deposit to be returned to Applicant / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $350 / Claim allowed in part.