Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants contracted Respondent for landscaping services, including tiling around new swimming pool / Tiles were laid too close to pool edge, creating significant risk of damage to pool / Applicants claimed $15,607.80 for remedial work / Respondent counterclaimed $3,493.70 for unpaid invoice / Held: Respondent not responsible for unideal aesthetic outcome of tiling, uneven levels out of its control / Respondent was responsible for insufficient gap between tiles and pool fibreglass, did not exercise reasonable care and skill / Remedial work presented similar level of risk as leaving pool as it was / Applicants prepared to take risk as remedial work would also fix aesthetic issues, which Respondent was not responsible for / Unjust for Respondent to be liable for full cost of remedial work / Respondent to contribute 60%, less outstanding invoice / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $5,021.38 / Claim granted in part.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant moved into a flat in November 2020 / Applicant paid $760 bond to head tenant Respondent / Applicant understood flatmates were planning to remain in the property for a while / In early January 2021, Applicant was informed the landlord had given the tenants one month to vacate property due to missed rent payments / Applicant moved out and requested her bond returned, Respondent refused / Applicant claimed $7,720.00 for bond, moving costs, mental health strain, loss of personal property, and other costs / Held: Applicant entitled to full bond / Applicant would have incurred expenses of moving into one flat, but not the additional expenses of moving again so soon / Applicant entitled to cost of moving and into another flat, but not the costs of subsequent move / Tribunal cannot consider the claim for mental health strain / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $3,110.00, bond and moving costs / Claim granted in part.  

Contract / Applicant booked two tickets on a fishing charter run by Respondent / Tickets indicated departure time was 9am / Departure time was actually 7am / Morning of the booking, Respondent phoned Applicant to ask whether they going on charter / Applicant was unable to get to departure point promptly so did not go on trip / Respondent later provided a partial refund, retaining $60 per ticket to cover costs /  Applicant claimed $160, for ticket price and filing fee / Held: departure time on ticket was a misprint but the time formed part of terms and conditions of contract / Respondent did not provide the trip as contracted and Applicant received no part of what he paid for / Applicant entitled to a full refund / Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to award costs, including the filing fee, in these circumstances / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $120 / Claim granted.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant contracted by Respondent to provide truck and two movers / Respondent failed to inform Applicant of heavy double door fridge that required more than two people to move / Applicant sent out additional crew and invoiced higher rate, which Respondent refused to pay / Applicant claimed payment of $2,033.00 invoice / Held: Respondent liable for remainder of invoice / Respondent not entitled to compensation from Applicant regarding alleged damage to property / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,670.70 / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a designer jacket for $3,601.78 / Jacket was drycleaned by Respondent / Jacket was returned damaged after drycleaning / Applicant sought cost of jacket / Held: Respondent did not follow jacket lapel instructions / Damaging jacket by washing it and not following the label instructions was foreseeable and direct loss / Respondent ordered to pay $3,686.78, jacket and drycleaning cost / Applicant entitled to jacket but did not want it due to damage / Claim allowed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased sofa from Respondent / At delivery, sofa was unable to fit through access points to Applicant’s house / Applicant told Respondent she no longer wanted sofa / Applicant claimed $2600 refund of amounts paid for sofa and delivery / Held: Applicant repudiated contract / Respondent entitled to cancel contract and seek damages for Applicant’s repudiation / Terms of sale relevant, provided that Respondent was able to retain deposit plus cancellation fee / Respondent entitled to retain reasonable deposit, delivery fee, and cancellation fee, but not full purchase price / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2114.10 refund / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicant and her then partner Respondent and another signed a fixed lease for a two bedroom property / Each agreed to pay $230.00 per week for rent / Respondent moved out without notice and stopped paying rent / Applicant and other tenant carried on covering rent in Respondent’s absence / Applicant claimed $4,600.00 for unpaid rent / Held: Respondent breached agreement by not paying rent after he moved out and the other tenants having had to cover the shortfall / Respondent obliged to pay rent to the end of the lease / Not reasonable in the circumstances for Applicant to be required to get another tenant / Respondent ordered to pay $3,220.00, factoring in miscalculation of amount owing by Applicant / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased fishing drone from Respondent that included product care replacement option and promotional gift cards / Fishing drone did not function and could not be repaired or replaced / Applicant claimed $5,100 / Held: Applicant entitled to refund of purchase price including product care / Applicant not obligated to return value of gift cards / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $5,100 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Consumers Guarantees Act 1993 / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased mare from Respondent / Applicant discovered mare was in foal and needed specialist care / Applicants claimed $2970 compensation for specialist care / Held: Respondent did not misrepresent mare's condition to Applicant / Neither Applicant nor Respondent made a mistake about mare's condition at time of sale / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Conditional contract / Applicant requested Respondent to provide quotation for house removal / Respondent's initial quotation based on assumption that concrete base around house was hollow but it was entirely concrete / Applicant did not accept new quotation / Respondent partially refunded and retained $5,000 deposit / Applicant claimed remaining deposit / Held: not appropriate for Respondent to bear entire risk as both Applicant and Respondent could have waited for property to be available before agreeing on quotation / Condition placed on quotation not met / New contract with different scope and price was not formed as Applicant did not accept quotation / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2,493 / Claim partially allowed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicants owned rental property / Applicants’ property manager engaged Respondent for work on Applicants’ property / Applicants paid initial $3000 towards Respondent’s work / Property manager cancelled Respondent’s work at Applicants’ property after issues with Respondent’s work on other properties managed by property manager / Applicants claimed refund of $3000 and 14.5% interest / Held: contract was between Applicant and Respondent, not Respondent and property manager / Contract was cancelled, work was not carried out / Applicants entitled to refund / Applicants entitled to interest, but 14.5% rate unreasonable / Respondent ordered to pay Applicants $3000 plus $100.25 interest / Claim allowed.  

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003 / Applicant purchased second-hand vehicle from Respondent for $11,000 / Respondent claimed repairs had recently been done / Vehicle broke down on way home from purchase / Applicant discovered Respondent bought vehicle only 6 days prior for $6000, price reflected repairs needed / Applicant produced evidence Respondent was in trade / Applicant claimed refund / Held: Respondent was a motor vehicle trader, although not registered or licensed / Respondent therefore subject to consumer legislation / Vehicle not of acceptable quality / Applicant entitled to cancel sale and obtain refund / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $11,000 / Claim allowed.