Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased e-bike for $4,999.00 / Bike purchased from store later sold to Respondent / Applicant brought bike to Respondent for services for two years / Bike’s motor eventually stopped working / Respondent attempted to resolve issue under warranty with manufacturer but was unable to do so / Applicant sought $5000.00 from Respondent / Applicant claimed bike was not fit for purpose from time of sale, Respondent should have diagnosed issue with motor earlier, and Respondent was negligent while in possession of bike / Held: Respondent was not supplier of goods to Applicant / Respondent not liable for goods being of acceptable quality / Respondent carried out service to Applicant with reasonable care and skill / No evidence that motor was damaged by anything done by Respondent / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Respondent supplied and installed blinds in the Applicant’s home / Applicant stated there was a toxic smell coming from the blinds once installed/ Applicant sought refund of $750.00 for blinds / Held: blinds were not fit for purpose or of acceptable quality / Failure was substantive in character / Applicant entitled to cancel the contract, reject the blinds and obtain a full refund / Respondent ordered to pay $750.00 / Claim allowed.

Jurisdiction / New Zealand Tourism Board Act 1991 / Applicant claimed they suffered losses in the course of application process to Respondent for an accreditation / Held: Disputes Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear causes of action on breaches of statutory duty / Applicant did not appear to present claim / Claim struck out for lack of jurisdiction.

Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA) / Applicant purchased vehicle from Respondent for $8,750.00 / Respondent stated there were no issues with vehicle and no money owing / After purchase numerous defects were found / Applicant took vehicle to mechanic who estimated repairs would cost $6,967.18 and charged $69.00 for the inspection / Applicant also discovered Respondent still owed finance on the vehicle / Held: Respondent did not have clear title to sell vehicle / Respondent misrepresented condition of vehicle / Applicant inspected, test drove and accepted vehicle before purchase, therefore lost right to reject vehicle and obtain refund / Applicant entitled to damages / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $7,000.00 / Claim allowed in part.

Guarantees / Consumer Guarantee Act 1993 / Applicant bought a hockey stick from Respondents on 30 April / Applicant noticed the hockey stick was damaged and contacted Respondents / Applicant brought a claim against Respondent for breaches of the Consumer Guarantee Act 1993 claiming the stick was not fit for purpose / Applicant seeks refund of purchase price of the hockey stick / Onus is on applicant to prove her case / Applicant has not proven that the damage caused to hockey stick was due to defect rather than the stick being used on abrasive surfaces / Claim is dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased an e-scooter from Respondent for $1,999 / Scooter stopped working after 6 months / Applicant requested refund / Respondent refused due to water damage / Held: scooter was significantly water damaged / Scooter sold on the basis that it was suitable for commuting, even when it was raining / Scooter became contaminated after 6 months’ of normal commuting use indicated it was not of acceptable quality / Scooter not capable of being repaired / Case for a refund made out / Respondent ordered to pay $1,999.00 / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant took vehicle to Respondent for engine repair / Respondent provided Applicant with quote for full engine replacement, but only replaced top part of engine in a bid to save costs for Applicant / After Respondent completed work, Applicant took vehicle to several mechanics who reported the engine number was the same as when the vehicle was registered / Applicant claimed he did not receive a full engine replacement and sought refund of $2,656.75 paid for the engine and associated repair costs / Held: Insufficient evidence Respondent did not use reasonable care and skill in repairing vehicle / Respondent had informed Applicant that only the top part of the engine had been replaced / Applicant did not provide Respondent with opportunity to remedy any potential failure / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Money Claims Act 2016 / Applicants engaged Respondent to uplift and reinstall house at new site / Respondent sent “full and final invoice” for work of $75,900.00, which Applicants paid in full / House was placed on metal stands to enable placement of piles / Piling was set back by numerous delays / Respondent issued $3,450.00 invoice to Applicants for rental of metal stands / Applicants refused payment / Respondent refused to lower house until invoice paid / Parties’ relationship soured, Applicants had house lowered by another company for $3,800 / Applicants claimed $19,169.52 compensation / Held: Applicants reasonable to deny liability for invoice / Respondent’s refusal to perform contract unreasonable / Applicants failed to mitigate losses / Applicants entitled to 50% of reasonably foreseeable losses from Respondent’s breach / Respondent ordered to pay Applicants $5,558.31, plus $165.44 interest / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Property / Applicant and Respondent entered into agreement for sale and purchase of real estate / Applicant discovered heat pumps were not working / Applicant claimed $1,978 / Held: heat pumps were not in reasonable working order on agreed date / $500 a reasonable value to restore lounge heat pump to working order / $ 1,278.99 not a reasonable value for replacement of dining room heat pump / Applicant not entitled to $200 for cost of purchasing heaters / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,000 / Claim allowed in part.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant’s car was damaged while being towed by First Respondent / First Respondent accepted liability for damage, took car to Second Respondent for repairs at First Respondent’s cost / Following repairs, Second Respondent noticed issue with flexiplate, informed Applicant / Applicant claimed First and/or Second Respondent liable for damage, which was not present when he gave car to First Respondent / Applicant claimed $639.88 for diagnostic work, $2,911.14 for replacement transmission, plus cost of renting vehicle at $100 per week for 58 weeks / Held: more likely than not that flexiplate damage caused by Second Respondent’s work / Work not completed with reasonable care and skill / Applicant obligated to mitigate loss, not entitled to full cost of vehicle rental / Second Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $5,941.02 / Claim allowed.

Rehearing application / Applicant applied for rehearing on grounds his mother-in-law for terminally ill / Held: Applicant given adequate opportunity to present his claim, despite circumstances / Reasons given for non-attendance were insufficient to justify re-opening the matter / Rehearing claim declined.

Contract / Applicant purchased a bike from Respondent / Bike failed while been ridden and sustained frame damage / Applicant claimed bike not fit for purpose / Applicant sought a refund of purchase price / Held: bike was designed and sold for lower level advanced and intermediate trail riding / Damage sustained not consistent with normal use on lower and intermediate trails / Not established that bike was not fit for purpose / Claim dismissed.  

Contract / Applicant paid fees to Respondent for training course / Applicant claimed she was denied attendance due to Covid mandates, sought refund of fees / Held: evidence did not support Applicant’s claim she was denied access / After mandate was lifted, Applicant had about four years to opt in to training opportunities, was encouraged by Respondent to do so / Applicant’s non-attendance most likely due to change of mind and circumstances, not any failure by Respondent / Contract also included “Force Majeure” clause that Respondent would not be liable for any failures of obligations caused by events outside its reasonable control / Claim dismissed.