Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Applicants stayed at holiday park every Summer for over twenty years / Applicants had a preferred waterfront site / Applicants unable to make January 2022 booking and moved it to following year / Applicants’ requested site was rebooked by prior guests / Respondent failed to notify Applicant prior to arrival / Applicants refused to accept alternative site / Applicants claimed $3,284.00 for accommodation and assorted expenses / Respondent counterclaimed $1,709.00 for cancellation fee and related costs / Held: Respondent breached contract with Applicants / Respondent should have notified Applicants in advance / Confirmation did not stipulate that Applicants had been allocated a different site / Applicants not required to meet obligations under contract / Applicants alternative accommodation expenses did not exceed holiday park costs / Applicants awarded $500 general damages / Claim allowed in part and counterclaim dismissed.

Consumer law / Applicant’s family stayed for one night at Respondent’s accommodation / Applicant charged $179 for accommodation and $120 for cleaning / On arrival Applicant noticed ants and a cockroach in the kitchen / Applicant claimed for $120 cleaning charge as she said the property has not been cleaned properly / Held: property was still fit for purpose / Insect infestation was small and limited to one room / Insects did not cause any significant disturbance to Applicant’s stay / Presence of insects did not meant the services were not fit for purpose / Claim dismissed.

Contract law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant inspected Respondent’s swing mooring / Applicant sent Respondent a report of the inspection and an invoice for $1,474.31 / Respondent disputed this amount and paid $579.60 /  Respondent’s boat broke free from the moor and grounded / Applicant seeks payment of balance of its invoice / Respondent counter claims seeking compensation for costs of recovering of the mooring and re floating the boat / Held: Evidence shows amount charged by Applicant for labour and materials was a reasonable price / Several factors that caused headrope to snap / Not proven that Applicants were liable for the boat slipping the mooring / Claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $579.60 / Counter claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant’s car damaged during break in / Applicant made insurance claim with Respondent / Respondent disputed whether all damage claimed was incurred by break in / Respondent approved claim of only $743.91 for panel and paint damage, considered damage to tailgate and locking system pre-existent / Applicant claimed $7950 for repair of locks and tailgates / Held: evidence did not prove damage was result of break in / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Tort of detinue / Respondent purchased vehicle from Applicant / Respondent returned vehicle to repair minor defects / Respondent refused to pay panel beater's $250 bill / Applicant had possession of vehicle and notified Respondent vehicle would be moved into storage and would accumulate storage cost / Applicant claimed payment for storage costs / Respondent counter-claimed damages / Held: no contractual agreement for payment of storage fees / Applicant wrongfully claimed right to hold vehicle / No legal right to hold goods until owner of goods pays a third party / Respondent not entitled to damages as refusal to pay panel beater's bill exacerbated stand-off / Claim dismissed / Counter-claim dismissed.

Contract / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Respondent contracted Applicant to repair her laptop / Laptop had water damage / Applicant diagnosed damage and invoiced Respondent $57.50 / Invoice included a reference to 20% per month compounding finance fee and that costs for non-payment would be charged / Respondent failed to pay invoice by due date / Applicant added penalty interest of 18% per month / Respondent paid $50, leaving a balance due of $7.50 / Applicant continued to add penalty interest / Applicant claimed $1,000.00, unpaid balance with interest of $50.50 and costs of $949.50 / Held: terms and conditions were excessive, punitive, and not enforceable / Terms and conditions did not form part of contract as not known to Respondent prior to contracting / Respondent owed original balance of original invoice / Respondent ordered to pay $7.50 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Applicant engaged Respondent to assist with demolition and building work / Project not completed by Respondent / Unclear from evidence what agreed price for the work was / Held: parties agreed that Applicant to be charged $30 per hour / Fair assessment of Respondent’s work on the project found to be 84 hours / Applicant paid $2,287 more than this and entitled to be repaid this by the Respondent

Contract / Quasi-contract / Dispute Tribunal Act 1988 / Applicant asked by Respondent's employee to prepare reports on building defects / Applicant informed compensation for work will form part of liquidator's costs / Applicant claimed invoice $15,122.50 / Respondent disputed it owes any money to Applicant / Held: Respondent's employee have the ability to contract on behalf of Respondent / No contract between Applicant and Respondent / Respondent repackaged Applicant's report with minimal additional changes / Quasi-contract applies / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $15,122.50 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicant sold real estate as independent contractor for Respondent / Sale and purchase agreements for new townhouses were signed in 2018, but settled when build completed in 2022 / Respondent stopped trading in 2019 / Respondent remained registered pending late settlements / When townhouses completed, Applicant contacted Respondent expecting commission as selling agent / Respondent dispersed deposit without paying Applicant commission / Applicant claimed $17,978.64 commission plus 14% interest / Held: contract between parties was not terminated when Applicant signed with new agency / Applicant entitled to commission / No contractual provision for interest, but can be awarded at Tribunal’s discretion / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant 18,797.27 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Building Act 2004 / Applicants engaged Respondent to build retaining wall / Wall showed signs of failing some months later / Respondent attempted to fix wall, but problem persisted / Applicants claimed $19,600 cost of remedial work / Respondent claimed Applicants breached agreement for Respondent to undertake two years of building work at their property, counterclaimed for $30,000 for lost income / Held: retaining wall not built with reasonable care and skill / Insufficient evidence that parties agreed Respondent would work on Applicants’ property for two years / Respondent ordered to pay Applicants $19,600 / Claim allowed, counterclaim dismissed.

Negligence / Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants went to carpark operated by respondent / Bolts protruding from ground punctured applicants tyre / Applicants couldn't repair tyre and took an Uber home / Applicant returned next day to meet tow truck / Applicants claim for tyre repair and replacement kit, uber, train fare, and parking fee / Held: respondent owed a duty of care to carpark users and has breached this duty / Damage occurred before carpark entered so no contract existed to contract out of / Can't contract out of the Act / Costs claimed are actual and reasonable and reasonably foreseeable consequence of damage caused by bolts / Parking fee not included as it didn't arise from the damage / Outcome: claim allowed, respondent to pay applicant $843.09

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a remanufactured laptop from Respondent / Laptop stopped working after three years / Applicant claimed laptop was not of acceptable quality as it was not reasonably durable / Evidence from Respondent stated laptop was remanufactured so had a shorter lifespan than a brand new laptop / Laptop was only sold with a one year warranty / Held: evidence provided suggested not unreasonable for the laptop to only last for three years / Laptop could be considered to be reasonably durable / Laptop had a lower purchase price to reflect that the consumer was getting less than from a brand new laptop / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant was a member of an airline loyalty programme under which she earned loyalty points / Respondent cancelled 187,928 of the Applicant’s loyalty points / Applicant sought either reinstatement of points or $6,207.26, amount needed to purchase same number of points / Held: Loyalty Programme Rules constituted contract that was relevant to the claim / Rules indicated that the Applicant was responsible to keep track of her points and their expiry date / Respondent had not breached its contract with Applicant / Claim dismissed.