Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Misrepresentation / Applicant purchased vehicle from Respondent after seeing advertisement online / Advertisement represented cambelt (amongst other things) had been replaced at 254,007 km and would start instantly / After purchase, vehicle did not start instantly and cambelt snapped / Mechanic stated cambelt had travelled 90,000 km more than represented and provided invoice for replacement of $3,659.02 / Applicant claimed Respondent misrepresented vehicle inducing purchase / Held: Respondent misrepresented vehicle / Statement about mileage at which cambelt replaced was false statement of fact that induced Applicant to enter into contract / Mileage represented one quarter less than actual mileage / Respondent to pay Applicant one quarter of invoice being $914.75 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Applicant’s parked car was damaged when the Respondent drove into it / Respondent claimed she was blinded by a sunstrike and that the Applicant car was illegally parked / Held: Applicant was negligent in continuing to drive when blinded by the sun / No evidence Applicant was illegally parked or that the car’s location contributed to the cause of the collision / Respondent solely liable for the damage to Applicant’s car / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $7,038.69 / Claim allowed.  

Contract / Applicants hired Respondent’s wedding venue / Applicants agreed to pay $500 bond for venue, to be refunded after the event / Respondent refused to refund bond on grounds that Applicants breached agreement / Respondent claimed venue was used outside agreed hours, compensation needed for extra-hours booking agent worked / Also, Respondent claimed Applicants left venue insecure twice / Applicants claimed bond refund and $1,150.00 in compensation for water from sprinklers damaging the wedding dress and cake / Held: Respondent did not have authority over sprinkler system on the reserve / Reserve land was responsibility of local council / Claim relating to cake and wedding dress dismissed / Respondent did not have justification under their contract to withhold bond / Applicant entitled to refund of $500 bond  / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant brought vehicle from Respondent after seeing an advertisement online which claimed the vehicle had “no issues at all” / After purchase the Applicant discovered numerous problems and was advised that is was uneconomic to fix and would be better to sell it for parts / Held: since the car is uneconomic to repair, damages are measured by the difference between the actual value of the car and the expected value of the car in the condition as represented / Respondent must pay Applicant the loss in value being $3,150.00 plus $65.22 for the first diagnostic and $151.44 for the mechanics report / Claim granted.

Property / Fencing Act 1978 / Applicant and Respondent own neighbouring properties / Respondent desired to build fence between properties for privacy / Applicant advised Respondent they were required to serve formal notice / No agreement reached between Applicant and Respondent / Respondent built fence / Applicant claimed $10,000 compensation and for fence to be removed at Respondent's expense / Respondents counterclaimed $2849.99 being half cost of fence / Held: Respondent not liable for removal cost / Fence adequate and soundly constructed / Applicant not liable for half cost of building fence / Claim dismissed / Counter-claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent’s plumbing services / Applicant claimed Respondent installed shower tray incorrectly, causing water flow issues / Applicant paid $1,400.00 of Respondent’s $3,017.63 invoice, but claimed $2,139.00 for cost of remedial work done by another supplier / Held: Respondent failed to install shower tray with reasonable care and skill / Respondent was given opportunity to remedy failure, failed to do so / Applicant entitled to cancel contract and compensation for repair costs / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2,139.00 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicant engaged Respondent as property manager for rental property / Applicant terminated contract after multiple significant water leaks occurred / Applicant claimed Respondent provided incorrect advice that leaks had been resolved, failed to address leaks in timely manner, and had failed to obtain consent for initial plumbing work / Applicant claimed $4985.57: $3290.61 in water charges, $971.04 refund of initial plumbing invoice, and $500.00 compensation for time resolving issues / Held: Respondent did not breach contract for arranging initial plumbing work / However, Respondent’s property manager was liable for making unwarranted assumption after seeing water maintenance trucks that water main issue had been resolved / Respondent must pay Applicant $2472.38 for excess water bills resulting from breach / Applicant not entitled to additional damages / Claim allowed.

Tort / Remedy / Applicant and Respondent involved in vehicle collision / Applicant claimed damages from Respondent / Value of damages to be claimed in dispute / Held: Respondent liable to Applicant for repair costs and not pre-accident value of vehicle / Respondent's insurer paid Applicant's insurer discharging Respondent's liability to Applicant / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant lent respondent loan of $31,117.56 / Respondent paid back $13,600.00 then stopped making repayments / Applicant and his wife then separated and relationship property was split – including the loan / Applicant’s wife forgave her share of the loan / Applicant claims $8,758.78, being one-half of the balance owing on the loan of $17,517.56 / Held: Applicant and wife jointly owned the loan debt and any repayments made prior to their separation / Applicant then owns a half share of the balance owing on the loan / Respondent is to pay Applicant $8,758.78 / Claim granted.

Contract / Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 / Applicant and Respondent owned flats next door each other that were subject of a cross-lease / Applicant suggested to Respondent to update cross-lease and Respondent agreed / Applicant said Respondent agreed to pay half the cost of legal and surveying and other fees in cross-lease transaction / Respondent refuses to pay / Applicant claimed $3,899.48 which is half of the costs / Held: Applicant provided insufficient evidence to prove Respondent agreed to contribute towards costs relating to cross-lease transaction / Respondent's property gained new exclusive use areas which would likely make property more attractive to potential future purchasers / 20% contribution from Respondent towards total costs is reasonable / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,559.79 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicants engaged Respondent to build house / Agreed completion date was 30 April 2021 / Work was not completed and Applicants cancelled contract in October 2022 / Applicants presented list of items left unfinished and costs of completing them / Applicants claimed $30,000.00 towards losses suffered / Held: Respondent’s behaviour made it clear it did not intend to complete obligations under contract, Applicants were entitled to cancel contract / Respondent ordered to pay Applicants $23,474.50, and Applicants entitled to $6,525.50 held in lawyers escrow account / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Applicant operated an inner city superette / Applicant stated Respondent came into the shop, and as he was serving her, her son’s scooter collided into one of the shop windows and damaged it / Applicant claimed $744.00 to replace damaged shop window / Held: no act of negligence on behalf of Respondent / Respondent’s son was supervised outside by adult / Respondent’s conduct as a parent was reasonable / Evident the Applicant suffered a loss but not all losses are recoverable / Applicant not shown that the damage was caused by Respondent’s act of negligence / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicants purchased vehicle for $6,800 from Respondent, selling on behalf of his parents / Car had obtained warrant in month before sale / Applicant queried if car had any issues or had been in accident, Respondent said not that he knew of / Applicants took vehicle to two auto-repairs specialists, who advised car appeared to have been damaged in accident / Applicants alleged Respondent misrepresented car’s condition, that car was unsafe, claimed refund / Held: not known when any accident happened / No evidence car unsafe / No evidence Respondent had work done on vehicle to conceal defects after it obtained warrant / No evidence Respondent misrepresented vehicle / Claim dismissed.