Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Quantum meruit / Applicant engaged by Respondent for home renovation project / Applicant did not send formal building contract to Respondent until 9 months into preliminary work / Respondent’s bank and solicitor raised concerns with contract / Attempts to amend contract to satisfy all parties were unsuccessful / Respondent engaged a different builder / Applicant claimed, on a quantum meruit basis, $4600.00 costs for preliminary work / Held: parties engaged with each other on expectation contract would be formalised / Preliminary work was never to be charged directly / By not sending contract earlier, or entering agreement for payment for preliminary work, Applicant took risk that contract may not be finalised / Respondent did not simply change her mind, but was prevented from signing contract as bank would not approve it / Respondent not liable to pay any amount towards Applicant’s claimed costs / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant and Respondent owned properties with adjoining boundary / Respondents had fence erected / During fencing work, underground pipe on Applicants’ property was damaged / Applicants claimed tree on their property was also removed / Respondents arranged for repairs to Applicants drains, but Applicants unhappy with work / Applicants claimed $2000 compensation for estimated further plumbing work and cost of replacing tree / Respondents counterclaimed $1,500 for amount Applicants agreed to contribute to fencing work but failed to pay / Held: no evidence that remedial was not done to a professional standard and no compelling evidence that tree was cut down during fencing work / Applicant bound by agreement to contribute to fencing costs / Applicant ordered to pay Respondent $1,500 / Claim dismissed, counterclaim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants had kitchen cabinets installed by Respondent for $18,500 / Eighteen months later, veneer laminate on cabinets had begun to ripple and lift / Applicants requested issue be repaired under warranty / Respondent determined damage caused by moisture exposure, therefore not covered by warranty / Applicants claimed cabinets were not fit for purpose, sought $4000 for repairs / Held: Applicants did not sufficiently prove claim / Defects did not appear to be from failure of materials used on cabinet doors / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant provided workshops and coaching for self-development / Respondent agreed to attend workshops and coaching at a discounted price / Respondent could not pay total cost and asked to pay in instalments / Applicant claimed balance owing $2387.50 / Held: Respondent fully informed of programme, accepted offer to participate and made an initial payment / Respondent agreed to participate and to pay total cost / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2387.50 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Respondent reversed into Applicant’s parked car / Applicant and insurer claimed $2,333.24 for repairs / Respondent accepted responsibility for collision but queried extent of damage and cost of repairs organised by Applicant’s insurer / Respondent disputed one dent  which was higher than the rest of the damage, arguing she could not have caused in the collision / Held: dent was small and distinct from rest of the damage / Respondent’s arguments were reasonable / Not proven that disputed dent occurred in the collision / Cost of repairing disputed dent, $103.50, removed from total cost claimed for repairs / Other disputed costs reasonable on the evidence / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $2,229.74 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant provided courtesy car to Respondent's daughter / Applicant claimed car suffered catastrophic engine failure / Applicant claimed $3,612.50 to replace car engine / Held: contract exists between Applicant and Respondent / Courtesy car provided because of original contract between Applicant and Respondent / Original car bought by the Respondent's daughter being repaired / Respondent's daughter did not cause damage to car / Respondent did not breach obligations by failing to return car in its original condition / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicant purchased airline tickets from Respondent airline / Flights cancelled due to COVID-19 restrictions and company restructure / Applicant sought refund of tickets / Respondent claimed it was not liable for refund as it entered voluntary administration / Held: deed of company arrangement did not bind New Zealand customers nor prevent them from seeking refund / New Zealand law applied / Respondent failed to provide accurate and complete information to its customers / New Zealand customers were not treated fairly by Respondent's flight policy / Respondent's flight policy was not fit for purpose / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $3,078.72 / Claim allowed.  

Contract / Applicant and Respondent are flatmates / Applicant paid $1,000 flat bond to Respondent as head tenant / Applicant left flat and claimed return of bond / Held: no agreement exists with regards to giving notice / Applicant did not breach any obligation to provide notice / Applicant entitled to full refund of bond / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,000 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicant engaged Respondent to reroof their commercially tenanted house / Reroofing rescheduled due to series of delays / Applicant's tenants present in building when Respondent went to do work / This posed as a health and safety hazard / Respondent claimed it was made clear building needed to be empty for duration of reroofing / Applicant subsequently contacted another roofing company / Applicants claimed $15,456.00 / Held: Respondent unable to prove they had communicated building needed to be vacant / Applicant justified in cancelling contract / Respondent should bear costs of scaffolding and freight / Respondent not liable to pay difference in contract price claimed by Applicant / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,748 / Claim allowed in part.

Negligence / Applicant’s son had collision with respondent / Applicants claim respondent is liable for collision as he entered lane from a give way controlled sideboard but failed to give way / Respondent claims other driver is liable because he failed to drive to the conditions / Held: not persuaded by applicant’s claim that the other driver bears some liability / Not enough to rely on a gap left by another vehicle / No evidence of contributory negligence / Damage consistent with description of collision and cost claimed for repair is reasonable / Outcome: claim allowed, respondent to pay applicants $7,261

Contract / Building Act 2004 / Applicant purchased property from Respondent / Prior to settlement, Applicant rented property from Respondent / Applicant provided Respondent with a list of defects / Respondent remedied some defects, but Applicant was not satisfied with painting, bathtub and paving stones / Applicant claimed $21,000.00 for cost of remedial work / Respondent counterclaimed $20,602.50 including for damage to reputation and reimbursement for services done outside warranty scope / Held: industry body report confirmed defects in painting workmanship / Damaged bathtub and footpath were defects / Respondent had more than reasonable time to remedy defects / Applicant entitled to $10,407.50 for remedial paint work, $875.00 for replacement bathtub, $1,660.60 cost of industry body report, and $700.00 for foot path blocks / Respondent ordered to pay $13,643.10 / Claim allowed in part, counter-claim dismissed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased car from Respondent / Respondent stated vehicle was in mint condition and came with mechanical warranty / After sale, warranty could not be transferred to Applicant, parties agreed Respondent would compensate Applicant $100 / Applicant queried if any major repairs had been carried out, Respondent advised vehicle had coolant issue repaired 10 days prior to sale / Coolant lights came on while Applicant was driving vehicle / Mechanic identified many mechanical issues / Applicant claimed refund of the purchase price of vehicle / Held: Respondent had duty to disclose recent major repairs / Evidence proved car was not in mint condition / Respondent mispresented car’s condition / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $5100 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003 / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased campervan from Respondent / Campervan’s engine blew up some days after purchase / Repairs cost $4304.74 / Applicant subsequently sold the campervan with camping equipment for a higher price / Applicant claimed cost of repairs / Held: Respondent was a motor vehicle trader / Campervan was not of acceptable quality under / Failure was of a substantial character / Respondent misrepresented campervan being mechanically safe and sound / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4304.74 / Claim allowed.