Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Negligence / Land Transport (Road User) Rules 2004 / Respondent’s vehicle hit Applicant’s vehicle at intersection / Applicant’s car was written off / Applicant and insurer claimed $4,539.70 in damages from Respondent / Respondent argued Applicant was at fault for collision due to failure to indicate / Held: evidence supported Applicant’s version of events / Even if Applicant failed to indicate, Respondent would still be liable, as he failed to give way at an intersection controlled by a give way sign / Respondent was solely liable for damage to Applicant’s vehicle / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $4,539.70 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant bought spa from Respondent / Spa motor failed and Respondent refused to remedy problem / Applicant claimed $1,798 from Respondent / Held: supplier of Applicant's spa most likely Respondent, who was operating business at the time / Applicant does not have a contract with new business owner / Spa not of acceptable quality / Applicant entitled to payment of costs to fix problem with spa / Respondent should be given an opportunity to remedy fault in spa /  Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $378 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased car from Respondent / Car had transmission issues while the  Respondent was driving / Repairs were carried out on vehicle / Parties unable to resolve matter / Applicant sought $3000 for repair costs / Held: Respondent did not misrepresent condition of vehicle / Even if the Respondent had misrepresented the car's condition not satisfied that the Applicant was induced to purchase the car by any misrepresentation/ Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant entered into agreement to purchase Respondent's business / Applicant claimed Respondent breached agreement / Applicant claimed $30,000 damages / Held: Tribunal Referee had power to join a person as a party to a claim / Insufficient evidence to support that First Respondent breached agreement in relation to items missing at time of sale / First Respondent breached agreement as most likely that some of the assets sold were not in good working order at the time of settlement / First Respondent liable to pay Applicant / No order made for payment as First Respondent was removed from Companies Register and its assets have been distributed / Second Respondent as guarantor of First Respondent's obligations liable to pay Applicant $3,479.00 / Claim against Third Respondent dismissed / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent to carry out Weathertightness Report on property in order to satisfy Applicant’s bank / Applicant paid $920.00 for inspection and report / Bank requested photographs of moisture meter readings / Respondent offered to take photographs for further $200 plus GST / Applicant engaged another inspector to provide information / Applicant claimed Respondent’s report not fit for particular purpose and Respondent failed to provide its service with reasonable care and skill / Applicant claimed refund of $736.00, being 80 percent of price paid / Held: Report fit for purpose / Service provided with reasonable care and skill / Photographs not usually required / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased car from Respondent for $11,000 / Two days later, warning lights came on and vehicle went into limp mode / Applicant took car to mechanic for diagnostics run, full service, warrant of fitness and post-purchase check and was charged $3,768.16 / Applicant claimed Respondent knew of vehicle’s faults and misrepresented vehicle / Applicant claimed $14,199.52, which included mechanic costs ($3,768.16), transport costs while car was at mechanic ($34.98), Tribunal costs ($216.37), and general damages for emotional stress and financial strain ($10,000) / Held: Respondent misrepresented car had been recently serviced and the registration light bulb replaced / Insufficient evidence to support Applicant’s other claims / Appropriate for Respondent to pay for service and replacement bulb, plus Applicant’s transport costs / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $650 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Applicant engaged Respondent to carry out accounting work / Respondent gave cost estimate and Applicant paid deposit / Respondent sent first invoice of $4976.68 / Applicant was shocked by cost, so terminated the work / Work was almost complete at time of termination, so Respondent sent report and invoiced $4306.97 for remainder of work / Applicant had paid $5400.00 towards invoiced amounts / Applicant sought declaration of non-liability for balance of $3883.65 / Respondent counterclaimed for payment of the balance $3883.65 plus debt collection costs of $2323.07 / Held: Applicant signed a letter of engagement and Respondent carried out the work / Work provided was in line with cost estimate / Applicant ordered to pay balance of $3883.65 and $885.57 of debt collection costs / Claim dismissed / Counterclaim partially granted.

Contract / Applicant sold a property to Respondent / Respondent negotiated price reduction due to asbestos in the building / After settlement, Applicant found that Respondent was in negotiation with another party to sell the property / Remedial work for asbestos had not been carried out / Applicant claimed he should be reimbursed as he agreed to lower selling price on basis that remedial work would be carried out / Held: not unusual for prices to be reduced due to state of a property / Agreement between parties was for price reduction as asbestos would be costly to remove / Neither the negotiation nor the agreement required Respondent to remove asbestos / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Land Transport Act 1988 / Applicant’s and Respondent’s cars collided while going around a roundabout / Applicant’s car was hit from the rear / Applicant and his insurer claimed for $1,484.75, $1,326.05 for cost of repairs and $158.70 for rental costs / Respondent admitted liability for damages but disagreed with amount / Held: repairs costs were supported by evidence and approved by insurance assessor / Respondent liable in negligence to pay Applicant $1, 484.75 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased car from Respondent / Car had significant mechanical problems / Applicant said Respondent misrepresented condition of car / Applicant would like to cancel agreement and claimed for refund and servicing costs / Respondent said he sold car in good faith / Held: insufficient evidence to show that a misrepresentation has been made / No compelling evidence that Respondent knew there was something wrong with the car / Claim dismissed.

Tort / Conversion / Negligence / Impounding Act 1955 / Contributory Negligence Act 1947 / Applicant and First Respondent had neighbouring farms / Applicant operated a deer velvet breeding operation / Applicant's deer strayed unto First Respondent's farm / First Respondent ordered other Respondents to shoot the four deer that strayed on his farm / Applicant claimed $11,500 for the cost of replacing the deer / Held: insufficient evidence to prove all four of shot deer belonged to Applicant / Only two of the hinds had ear tags indicating ownership by Applicant / First Respondent solely respondent for the loss of the deer because he instructed the other Respondents to shoot them without informing them that some of the deer had ear tags / Contributory negligence defence generally not available for an intentional wrong such as conversion / Applicant did not breach duty of reasonable deer farmer by allowing his deer to escape / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $5,000 / Claim allowed in par…

Contract / Applicant booked travel on a flight with Respondent / Applicant missed Respondent’s flight due to travel delays / Applicant purchased ticket with different airline for US$559.94 / Applicant claimed cost of $559.94 airline ticket / Held: Applicant’s contract with Respondent was for the flight only / It was Applicant’s responsibility to ensure booked flights were suitable for her purposes / Applicant’s inability to get to Respondent’s flight on time was not Respondent’s fault / No breach of contract established / Applicant not entitled to compensation / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicant purchased two tickets for a concert for $356.30 / Tickets were later advertised at a special price of $99.00 / Applicant claimed that when she bought the tickets she asked if they were the cheapest price available / Applicant claimed $203.30, being the difference between the price she paid and the discounted ticket price, plus filing fee / Held: no guarantee made when Applicant purchased tickets that they would be lowest price / No law prohibiting promotion of subsequent discounts for an event / Respondent did not engage in misleading or deceptive conduct / Claim dismissed.