Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant bought property from Respondent / Applicant claims Respondent stated roof had been repaired and only needed repainting / Roof leaked and needed to be replaced / Applicant claims $30,000 for roof replacement / Held: Respondent innocently misrepresented condition of roof / Respondent liable to pay for replacement of roof / Respondent to pay Applicant $20,000 / claim allowed.

Contract / Applicant parked in private car park owned by Respondent / Applicant failed to pay fee to use car park / Respondent issued Applicant with $65.00 fine /  Applicant failed to pay fine so Respondent issued overdue notice of $85.00 / Applicant paid $14.00 / Applicant claims $300.00 to recover costs of engaging in this process, and as a penalty to the Respondent / Applicant claims no contract formed as contract terms and conditions were not clearly laid out in visible place / Respondent counterclaims $71.00 for unpaid fees / Held : Signage was sufficient for contract terms to be clearly visible / Applicant to pay Respondent $71.00 / Claim dismissed / Counterclaim granted.

Contract / Applicant responded to advertisement for sale of property made by Respondent online / Applicant visited address several times and paid Respondent deposit of $10,000 / No Sale and Purchase Agreement was ever written up / Applicant could not arrange for bank finance because bank would only lend him land value because building did not have Code of Compliance / Held: deposit is refundable because it has not been proved it was non-refundable / Not usual for deposit to be paid until unconditional contract has been formed / No unconditional contract has been formed here / Respondent to refund Applicant deposit less $1,265.00 for cost of obtaining valuation to assist Applicant / Claim partially granted.

Property / Applicant and Respondents were neighbours / Respondents complained about the trees on Applicant’s property due to allergies / Respondents requested that the trees be removed / Parties had a discussion about the trees which they now recall differently / Respondent proceeded to cut down the trees / Applicant claimed $2,999.00 for the cost of replacing the trees / Whether the Respondent had permission to cut down the trees / Held: evidence insufficient to prove the Respondent did not have permission to remove the trees / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumers Guarantee Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant hired a mechanical bull from Respondent / Mechanical bull did not work / Applicant given a partial refund from Respondent / Respondent retained some costs for the delivery of the bull / Applicant claimed $350.00 for outstanding refund / Held: mechanical bull did not provide the service needed on the night / Different reasons why the bull could have failed  / Respondent breached his obligations under the CGA / Failure was of a substantial character / Applicant entitled to a refund for remainder of the amount / Respondent ordered to pay $350.00 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Contra Proferentum / Housing / Applicant entered into an agreement for sale and purchase of property with Respondent / agreement had rental guarantee clause “whereby the vendor agreed to pay for an untenanted period after the settlement date up to a maximum of $3,600 or six weeks’ rent (whichever is lesser)” / Applicant has claimed payment of $3,300.00 under this clause / Respondent has refused to pay as Applicant has not used any of the agencies recommended by Respondent / Applicant had used an agent mentioned twice in the contract by Respondent / This company had not been mentioned in an email between the two recommending specific rental companies / Whether the company used by Applicant was “recommended” by Respondent / Held: company mentioned in contract was “recommended” by Respondent / normal definition of the word was met within contract / Respondent to pay $3,300.00 to Applicant / Claim upheld.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant’s vehicle broke down / Applicant contacted Second Respondent to “rescue” them / Second Respondent delayed as answered another call first / Applicant claimed Second Respondent did not undertake the “rescue” with reasonable care and skill / Applicant’s vehicle was taken to First Respondent's garage / First Respondent authorised to undertake repairs / Applicant claimed these repairs were not done with reasonable care and skill / Applicant’s vehicle was repaired but afterwards several parts no longer functioned properly / Held: claim against Second Respondent dismissed due to being deemed to be done with required care and skill / First Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $345.50  / Claim granted in part.

Negligence / Duty of care / Applicant’s house and garage destroyed by fire / Applicant claims if pressure release valve (PRV) near property worked properly, fire service would have been able to stop spread of fire to garage / Applicant claims Respondent liable for costs of contents of garage destroyed by fire / Did Respondent owe a duty of care to ensure PRV maintained / If so, did Respondent breach duty / If so, did breach cause loss of contents to garage / If so, what are losses / Held: Respondent owes duty of care to ensure PRVs maintained / Held: Respondent did not breach duty of care / Respondent had reasonable maintenance plain for PRVs and adhered to the plan / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant parked his car in the Respondent's paid carpark / Upon return Applicant found his car had been stolen / Applicant claimed $12,000.00 from his insurer but did not get the $16,000.00 he paid for his car / Applicant claimed the difference / Applicant claimed Respondent breached a term in the parking agreement to keep his car secure / Respondent claimed they took responsible care by their actions in securing the car park / Held: vehicles parked in the car park at the owner's risk / Applicant could not prove Respondent failed to show reasonable care and skill that would be expected of a car park owner / Claim dismissed.

Tort / Respondent’s bike collided and damaged front wheel of Applicant’s bike /  Applicant claimed $365.00 made up of $230.00 to replace the front wheel of his bike and $135.00 medical costs / Held: Respondent had not taken reasonable care to ride bike in a manner that did not cause harm to other users of the cycleway /  Second Respondent is not vicariously liable for the Respondent / Applicant’s medical costs are covered by Accident Compensation Act / Claim granted, Respondent to pay Applicant $100.00.  

Consumer Law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 / Applicant acquired the services of the Respondent (an arborist) about tree work to be done on property / Applicant claims that the Respondent did not complete work as instructed and without reasonable care and skill / Applicant claims for Respondent to pay the all or any of the costs / Respondent claims for invoice to be paid / Respondent claims for Applicant to pay the legal fees / Held: respondent removed more trees than instructed and without the Applicant's authority or consent / Respondent performed the work with reasonable care and skill under s 28 of the CGA / Respondent breached the contract and is liable to pay compensation for damages / Applicant is liable to pay the incoive under the terms agreed as the quality of workmanship itself do not render costs unpayable / The contract did not include liability for the Respondent to pay legal costs incurred / Section 43 of the Disputes Tribunal prevents …

Manager's duties / Applicant company provided catering services to the Respondent and charged a monthly bill of $500 / Representative of the Applicant company was also the manager of the Respondent company / Representative handed in her resignation as manager to the Respondent finishing on 30 June / Representative and her children contracted Covid and isolated / Representative returned to work on 29 June to hand back keys / Applicant sought $500.00 for the June monthly fee / Respondent claimed representative failed to perform her duties as a manager / Held: Respondent could not prove the representative failed to perform her duties as manager / Applicant's representative cannot reasonably be expected to perform her usual tasks while sick and isolating / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $500.00 / Claim granted.

Contract / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant obtained vet services from the Respondent / Respondent's vet discussed the possibility of euthanasia / Applicant unhappy with the vet’s assessment and sought a second opinion / Applicant withheld payment for the vet’s bill, $402.00 / Applicant claimed Respondent misrepresented their provided services / Applicant also claimed the work by the Respondent’s vet was not up to the CGA standard / Respondent counterclaimed / Held: Respondent’s advertisement was not misleading regarding their expertise with horses / Duty of reasonable care and skill under the CGA was adhered to / Applicant did not had insufficient evidence to prove standard was not met / Respondents did not provide Applicant with their interest terms and conditions / Interest cannot be charged / Claim and counterclaim dismissed.