Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Property Law Act 2007 / Applicants advanced $201,000.00 to their daughter and her Respondent partner towards property purchase / Applicants' daughter and Respondent separated and property was sold / Loans paid to Applicants / Applicants stated Respondent owed them an equity share in net sale proceeds / Applicants claimed $24,000.00 being half-share of profit, $3,375.00 legal fees and $416.97 interest / Held: Applicants had an agreement with their daughter and Respondent for Applicants to receive a profit-share on property sale / Profit-share agreement was legally enforceable contract / Respondent breached profit-share agreement by not paying any share to Applicants when property was sold / Applicants entitled to receive half-share profit / Applicants' claim for interest and legal costs dismissed / Applicants entitled to receive damages / Respondent ordered to pay Applicants $25,650.00 / Claim allowed in part.

Consumer law / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant bought baby carrier from Respondent / Applicant claimed $180.00 refund as baby carrier was counterfeit / Held: representation made in advertisement that baby carrier was a genuine brand was incorrect / Respondent misrepresented baby carrier to Applicant / Applicant suffered a loss due to misrepresentation / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $180.00 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Personal liability / Applicant paid Respondent's company $21,853.22 for electrical work and materials / Respondent did not do electrical work or provide materials / Respondent's company placed in liquidation / Applicant sought refund of $21,853.22 / Held: not enough evidence to find Respondent was personal liable for his company's debt to Applicant / Director and shareholder of company not personally liable for company debts, even where only one director and shareholder / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant claimed Respondent agreed to rent house with him and a third party / Applicant claimed he had Respondent’s permission to sign tenancy agreement on his behalf, as Respondent was overseas at the time / When Respondent moved to New Zealand he chose to live elsewhere / Applicant claimed he was forced to cover Respondent’s share of rent for several months, totalling $11,800.00 / Respondent denied he ever agreed to terms of tenancy or that he gave Applicant permission to sign tenancy agreement on his behalf / Held: insufficient evidence that Respondent gave permission for Applicant to sign tenancy agreement on his behalf, or that he was aware Applicant had done so / Claim dismissed.

Property / Fencing Act 1978 / Applicant and Respondents owned neighbouring properties / Respondents built fence, including retaining wall, on Applicant’s side of boundary / Fence was moved back to boundary, but retaining wall was not / Applicant sought order that retaining wall be removed at Respondents’ expense,  and that fence height be reduced to comply with council rules / Respondent counter-claimed $10,056.73 for half cost of building fence and retaining wall, and cost of moving fence / Held: wall did not need to be removed, as degree of encroachment on Applicant’s land was minimal, and it was not adversely affecting Applicant’s use and enjoyment of its land / No evidence that fence height breached council rules / No agreement between parties that Applicant would contribute to cost of fence, nor did Respondents serve fencing notice on Applicant, therefore Applicant not liable to contribute to cost of fence / Claim dismissed / Counter-claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant ran a hotel that offered a “tradies package” / Package consisted of accommodation and meals for tradespeople from Monday to Friday at a special rate / Respondent stayed three nights beginning on a Monday / Applicant informed Respondent hotel fully booked over the long weekend and helped Respondent find another accommodation / Respondent left hotel without paying for accommodation and meals / Applicant claimed $381.98 from Respondent / Held: Respondent was obliged to pay claimed sum / Contract did not contemplate that Respondent could stay as long as he liked / Applicant justified in asking the Respondent to leave / Applicant complaints regarding lunch was not a good defence to the claim / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $381.98 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Fair Trading Act 1998 / Respondent inspected a heat pump at Applicant’s rental property / Respondent recommended heat pump be replaced / Applicant alleged Respondent’s advice was fraudulent, claimed compensation of $15,000 / Respondent counterclaimed $2,000, comprised of $115 for unpaid invoice and $1,885 costs / Held: Applicant failed to prove any wrongdoing by Respondent / In any case, no evidence of any loss suffered by Applicant / Respondent’s charge for inspection was reasonable and proved / Applicant ordered to pay Respondent $115.00 / Claim dismissed, counterclaim allowed in part.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant contracted to purchase caravan from Respondent and paid deposit / Applicant purported to cancel contract and offered to cover Respondent's incurred costs / Applicant claimed refund of $28,600.00 deposit / Held: no agreement that deposit was non-refundable / Applicant's attempt to cancel contract was accepted by Respondent / Applicant not required to purchase caravan / Applicant liable for any costs or losses Respondent incurred due to cancellation / Respondent entitled to retain $11,500.00 of deposit / Respondent ordered to pay $17,100.00 for losses / Claim allowed in part.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased carrier vests from Respondent / Applicant wished to return them as vests did not fit / Respondent refused to give refund if buyer changed their mind / Applicant claimed for refund / Held: Respondent cannot be liable as they would never know the measurements of an online purchaser / Respondent can only provide vest measurements and leave it for the purchaser to decide / Vests received by Applicant matched the description Respondent provided and were fit for purpose / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicant took his car to Respondent for engine issues / Respondent disassembled engine to diagnose problem / Applicant approved repair completed by Respondent / Insurer declined Applicant's cover / Applicant refused to pay $16,237.80 invoice / Applicant sought declaration of non-liability to pay $10,000 of invoice / Held: Respondent misled Applicant by failing to disclose that insurer had expressed view that issue was likely manufacturing fault and therefore might not be covered / However, Applicant failed to prove he had suffered any loss by having the work done / Applicant ordered to pay Respondent $16,237.80 / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant paid $560 for a full balayage hair colour treatment by Respondent / Applicant was disappointed with results as roots were not completed and haircut, treatment and style were completed that she did not ask for / Applicant sought refund of $560 / Held: roots were included in price of job / Applicant had to leave before roots could be completed, but was entitled to come back and get them finished at no extra charge / Unable to find that services were not provided with reasonable care and skill / Applicant had duty to give Respondent opportunity to remedy concern, but did not do so / In regard to services Applicant believed she did not ask for (cut, treatment and style) these came to $115.00 / Applicant was given a discount of $195.00, so was not charged for those services / Applicant did not suffer any disadvantage / Applicant not entitled to compensation / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Respondent collided work vehicle with Applicant's unattended vehicle / Respondent blacked out / Vitals taken by firefighter showed low heart rate / Applicant and insurer claimed for losses suffered as result of car being uneconomic to repair / Held: more likely than not that Respondent suffered loss of consciousness outside his control / Respondent not negligent and not liable for losses suffered by Applicant / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants purchased outdoor furniture from Respondent for $4,596 / Wooden framing showed signs of deterioration after 3 years / Furniture was outside warranty / Respondent offered a credit of 50 percent of purchase price / Applicant sought reasonable remedy / Held: furniture was not fit for purpose / Furniture was not suitable for outdoor use it was intended for / Not practical to replace furniture as model has been discontinued / Respondent ordered to refund furniture costs of $4,596 / Claim allowed.