Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased electric bike from Respondent / Applicant said assurance from sales staff that bike was able to charge phone a critical factor in purchase / Applicant discovered phone could not be charged from bike / Applicant claimed $13,484 refund and legal costs / Held: bike of acceptable quality and fit for purpose / No right to reject bike and contract remains binding / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant entered into a contract via contra agreement / Applicant agreed to paint stock car belonging to Respondent free of charge / Respondent agreed to put Applicant's signage on the car when it raced at a speedway / Respondent did not like colour and repainted it / Once repainted, Applicant’s signage was no longer visible / Car driven at Speedway / Applicant’s owner sent invoice to Respondent for $2062 for paint work done / Held: agreement was for Applicant to paint the car in return for Respondent allowing car to display Applicant’s signage / Applicant did not breach contract / Applicant received no benefit for work done / Applicant entitled to invoiced amount / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2062 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicant worked at Respondent’s painting business occasionally / Applicant was paid for his work / Conflicting accounts of whether Applicant would receive payment to assist Respondent in painting his son’s house / Applicant said Respondent offered to pay him in paint / Applicant said he left note on Respondent’s vehicle telling him what paint he wanted / Respondent denied any such agreement was entered into and denied seeing note / Applicant claimed that because he wasn’t given paint promised, he invoiced Respondent for his work / Invoice was for $1,250.00 / Whether Respondent agreed to pay Applicant by giving him paint and if so, whether he now required to pay Applicant $1,250.00 in lieu of the paint / Held: no agreement between the parties for Respondent to pay Applicant in cash for helping to paint house / Insufficient evidence to prove Respondent agreed to pay Applicant in paint for helping him to paint house / Respondent not obligated to pay invoiced amount of $1,250.0…

Contract / Misrepresentation / Applicants claim $43,604.25 in damages from Respondents for misrepresenting bathroom leaking issues in property sale / Held: Respondents made a false representation inducing the Applicants to purchase the property by ticking “no” as to whether the property had any leaking issues / Respondents had been advised of leaking issues in both bathrooms by their long-term tenant prior to the sale of the property /  Respondents had previously arranged a contractor to investigate and remediate one of the leaks / Applicants entitled to compensation for the cost of fixing the leak and its effects in the bathroom / The monetary limit the Tribunal may award is $30,000 / Respondents to pay Applicants $30,000/ Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicant purchased property from Respondent / Applicant claimed Respondent failed to provide keys to all exterior doors / Applicant claimed losses of $2,070 / Held: Respondent breached contract by not making available keys to all exterior doors / Additional legal costs unable to be claimed / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $573.30 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Respondent contracted Applicant to replace roof at property / Applicant dropped off materials to Respondent's property / Respondent unhappy that the new roofing materials had a different profile from existing proofing / Applicant refused to remove materials from Respondent's property / Applicant claimed $13,473.40 for material costs, mark-up, trailer hire and labour / Held: no basis to find that materials were of unacceptable quality / Appropriate remedy is for Respondent to cancel the contract and consider options freely / Applicant ordered to remove materials from Respondent's property / Claim dismissed.

Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant bought vehicle from Respondent / Vehicle received by Applicant without wheels, contrary to what was advertised / Applicant claimed compensation for losses / Held: Respondent misrepresented the vehicle to Applicant / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $3,447.50 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Vehicle collision / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / Applicant's vehicle damaged beyond economical repair in a collision with Respondent's vehicle / Applicant claimed for damages / Held: Respondent breached his duty of care by failing to consider the vehicles that had been following him before attempting a U-turn / Respondent was negligent / Applicant not contributorily negligent / Respondent vicariously liable / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4,700 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Insurance / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant's motorbike was with Respondent for service when it got flooded and damaged / Applicant claimed $14,000 / Held: loss suffered by Applicant was not a loss directly related for any failure to not complete the service within reasonable time / Respondent not negligent because they moved premises and for not attempting to move bike during flooding / Applicant's loss not covered under insurance policy / Applicant had not lost opportunity to remediate / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant took boat to Respondent for maintenance / Boat needed plank for repairs / Plank purchased and stored by Respondent / Applicant paid for plank / Applicant later decided to sell boat and not proceed with repair / Respondent sent invoice for 4-years’ storage of plank / Applicant claimed should not have to pay $468 storage fee / Held: no agreement that Applicant would pay for storage / Quasi contract imposed / Respondent did not expect to charge storage fee / Respondent stored plank in expectation of future work / Applicant received benefit from storage / Applicant liable for storage costs / Fee reduced by half to account for periods when Respondent shut down due to COVID-19 or could not accommodate Applicant, possibly increasing storage period / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Applicant bought a fish online / Applicant claimed fish received was inferior to one he thought he was purchasing / Respondent denied selling Applicant fish / Later Respondent claimed he was acting on behalf of another to sell fish to Applicant / Applicant sought a replacement fish or to return fish and obtain a full refund / Held: evidence indicated Applicant was involved in the transaction / Contract was breached by Respondent failing to send a particular fish species / Applicant had fish for more than six months / Restricted circumstances where contracts for sales of goods can be cancelled / Applicant entitled to $1,500.00, difference between what he paid and value of fish received / Claim granted in part.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant organised a camp at a location run by the Respondent / Applicant claimed they experienced a series of incidences where Respondent’s staff were disrespectful and unprofessional during their stay / Applicant also stated that the Respondent’s manager drove in an unsafe manner / Further, Applicant said they were denied access to the bathroom facilities because a motion sensor light was not turned on / Applicant sought a $3,900.00 reduction of the balance they owed Respondent / Held: Respondent’s manager said circumstances meant he had to act urgently / Imminent risk of people being struck by tree or falling off a truck / No reasonable loss that can be claimed on bathroom access issues / Aggrieved parties also have a duty to mitigate any losses they claim / No award can be given under legislation for speaking disrespectfully / Applicant not proven that service provided by Respondent was inadequate or not fit for purpose / Not proven that R…

Consumer Law / Misrepresentation / Applicant bought car from Respondent / Respondent made three representations regarding car that it drives great, has no panel damage and that the odometer reading was 130,000 km / Applicant claimed compensation for misrepresentation / Held: Applicant successful in showing misrepresentation relating to exterior condition of car and odometer reading / Respondent ordered to Pay applicant $865.18 / Claim allowed.