Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased candles online from Respondent / Applicant stated candles were smudged and flattened near the bottom and not of the quality she expected / Applicant sought to return the candles and receive compensation of $127.00 / Respondent stood by the quality of the candles saying they were produced in beeswax and were formed within a mold / Respondent said she offered to exchange the candles but the offer was not accepted / Held: candles were of acceptable quality and fit for purpose / Clear to any buyer that that the candles were not hand-carved / No breach of guarantee / No right to refund / Claim dismissed.

Contract law / Applicants engaged Respondent to install concrete pool surround and patio for $34,348.49 / Applicants paid $17,174.25 but dispute outstanding balance of $16,481.02 / Applicants claim alleged work not completed with reasonable care and skill and sought declaration of non-liability for outstanding invoices from Respondent / Respondent sought payment of outstanding invoices / Held: work on pool was completed with reasonable care and skill / Product recommended was appropriate for pool condition and budget but Respondent failed to clearly communicate its likely aesthetic limitations / Referee accepted Applicants were inadequately warned about visual risks of cutting coping edge / No structural defect and cost of a full redo of the pool was disproportionate to loss Applicant’s suffered / Applicants awarded 20% discount for loss of amenity plus prior credit of $602.80 / Applicants ordered to pay Respondent $9,008.52 / Claim accepted in part.

Contract / Parking / Car owned by Applicant was parked on private premises / Parks labelled as private property where unauthorised vehicles would be issued infringement notices / Respondent issued infringement notices to Applicant totalling $513.44 / Applicant claimed car not driven by them / Applicant sought declaration she was not liable for $513.44 and reimbursement of $59 filing fee / Respondent counterclaimed $513.44 from Applicant / Respondent claimed Applicant had not proven they were not vehicle’s driver / Held: for person to be held financially liable for another’s actions, reasonable basis was required and none was presented / Unreasonable that Respondent believed driver was agent of Applicant / Respondent’s counterclaim not minor, trivial or unreasonable / Applicant took no action to establish she was not driver / Counterclaim needed to be resolved / Applicant not liable to pay $513.44 to Respondent / Respondent not liable to pay Applicant $59 filing fee / Claim allowed in p…

Negligence / Applicant and Respondent were drivers involved in a collision on a rural highway / Police reporting indicated the Respondent was not travelling to the conditions and crossed the centre line / Respondent disputed liability / Applicant claimed $19,000.00, being the value of his vehicle, towing costs and loss of income / Held: Respondent liable in negligence for causing the collision/ Respondent would not have lost control and crossed the centre if she had been driving to the conditions / Compensation for vehicle price, towing, and loss income was reasonable  / Applicant was able to sell the wreck for $700 so that was deducted from the costs sought / Respondent ordered to pay $17,724.08 to Respondent / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicant agreed to lend Respondent $750.00 / Parties agreed Respondent would repay Applicant when she received a lump sum payment / Held: no dispute that $750.00 was due / Time frame for payment was conditional on receipt of a payment / Payment not yet received but was expected within the next six months / Agreement was not breached as the repayment condition remained in force / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993  / Applicant purchased greenstone from the Respondent online / Applicant said greenstone had micro-fractures which were not visible in the listing photos / Applicant sought to return the greenstone with a refund / Held: Respondent found to be in trade / Insufficient evidence to find greenstone did not comply with the guarantee of acceptable quality / Greenstone was fit for the common purpose of carving / Imperfections such as micro-fractures were inherent with natural resources / Greenstone met the guarantee of acceptable quality as it for fit for common purposes / Not established that that the photos in the listing were a misrepresentation / No breach found / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant purchased a robot vacuum cleaner from Respondent for $389 in 2019 / Applicant claimed that by 2025, the vacuum was no longer usable / Applicant claimed he was entitled to cancel the sale and obtain damages equal to the cost of purchasing a new comparable model as it was not durable nor free from minor defect / Respondent admitted the sale and accepted the vacuum had failed / Respondent claimed vacuum had worked for a reasonable time given date of sale and type of vacuum / Respondent admitted it was unable to provide parts for the model given its age / Applicant sought compensation of $389 / Held: vacuum was five and a half years old / Vacuum was at the lower end of the market / Robot cleaners have a hard life and can be used often / Reasonable consumer would not expect five and a half years of continuous use at that price point / Respondent did not breach the CGA / Claim dismissed.

Negligence /Applicant claimed he was driving when the Respondent’s dog ran onto the road / Applicant claimed he was unable to avoid hitting the dog as it appeared suddenly in front of him / Respondent admitted owing and being in control of the dog at the time / Respondent denied she was negligent as the dog was only off his lead momentary / Respondent claimed she was about to put the dog on the leash when he went onto the road / Respondent claimed the collision occurred as the Applicant was not keeping a proper lookout/ Applicant claimed costs of repair was $5,430.19 / Held: evidence indicated that the Respondent was liable for the damage caused by her dog while it was temporarily outside of her control / However, there was contributory negligence on the part of the Applicant / Incident occurred on a busy road and the Applicant had an obligation to be able to stop if an obstruction appeared on the road / Contribution of 50 percent was allowed / Damage was consistent with description of…

Contract / Tort / Conversion / Parties bought 4 cows and a bull / Parties intended to co-own bull but Respondent primarily looked after it / Parties agreed one cow to be delivered to First Applicant but Respondent did not deliver cow /  Applicant texted Respondent to offer resolving dispute by Respondent paying Applicant $150 / Three years later Respondent paid $150 to Applicant / Second Applicant had cow which Respondent sold to freezing works / Applicant claims $6150 for value of cow Respondent didn't deliver / Second Applicant claims $942.08 for cow Respondent sold to freezing works / Respondent counterclaims against Applicant $5598.10 / Held: Parties had agreed each would own two cows with cow in dispute owned by Applicant / Respondent took steps to prevent Applicant from collecting cow amounting to conversion irrespective of whether cow is still alive / Applicant entitled to $1000 compensation for cow and $1250 for its calves /  Respondent refused Applicant access to bull in breac…

Negligence / Applicant and Respondent were involved in car accident / Applicant drove straight through intersection / Respondent turned right from side street with give way sign and collided with Applicant / Respondent claimed intersection was blocked and Applicant was speeding / Applicant claimed $3482.55 for damage caused / Held: Respondent failed to give way and entered intersection without ensuring turn could be completed safely / Tribunal found Respondent’s maneuver unreasonable given vehicle size and traffic conditions / Tribunal rejected Respondent’s claims that Applicant was speeding or should have stopped due to insufficient evidence and conflicting accounts / No proof Applicant’s driving contributed to collision / Respondent and insurer ordered to pay Applicant and insurer $3482.55 / Claim allowed.

Consumer Law / Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Respondent agreed to make Applicant a dress for her birthday party for $280.00 / Applicant paid $170.00 toward materials / Dress was not completed / Applicant sought a refund of $170.00 paid / Respondent claimed there was no contract as the dress was offered as a gift  / Held: no evidence the Respondent offered to make the dress as a birthday gift / Therefore, there was a contract between the parties / Respondent breached and cancelled the contract when they failed to finish the dress / Applicant is to collect the fabric from Respondent / Financial award not appropriate  / Claim dismissed .

Contract law / Applicant owned two rental properties managed by Respondent / Respondent purchased business previous property manager / Respondent deducted fees in accordance with its standard contract / Applicant disputed deductions and believed Respondent had underpaid amount owing / Applicant claimed $1423.99 for underpayment / Held: Respondent’s standard contract did not apply as Applicants had never seen or agreed to it / Despite this, Respondents had paid all rent due under original contract between Applicants and original property managers / Respondent entitled to deduct termination and Tenancy Tribunal fees following tenant’s departure / Respondents overcharged Tribunal fee allowed in contract by $100 / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a water distiller from the Respondent / Applicant noticed rust forming inside the wall of the distiller’s stainless steel boiling chamber / Efforts to clean the rust were unsuccessful / Applicant sought a refund of the purchase price and reimbursement of the Tribunal filing fee / Respondent said the rust the Applicant referred to would have been the result of her inappropriate use of an abrasive agent / Held: the extensive rust referred to by the Applicant was not normal and not such as should be reasonably acceptable to a reasonable consumer / No causal link between the use of an abrasive agent and the rust appearing / Device’s failure to meet the relative, and applicable, guarantee was substantial / Respondent was to provide a full refund of the purchase price of $599.00 / Tribunal had no power to award the Tribunal filing fee / Claim allowed in part.