You can search by selecting a jurisdiction, a keyword (for example a name) or browse by year. Identifying details have been removed.

Some decisions in this section have had minor editorial changes applied, that have no effect on the outcome.

Search results

270 items matching your search terms

  1. GT v SGG Ltd & Ors [2017] NZDT 1047 (27 November 2017) [PDF, 83 KB]

    Jurisdiction / applicant purchased trailer to build tiny house / trailer registered in applicant’s name & statement that ownership transferred on payment / seller went into liquidation & trailer & partially built house included in sale of business / whether Tribunal has jurisdiction or whether claim should be transferred to District Court (DC) / whether applicant had title to trailer / whether respondent liquidator liable for conversion / Companies Act 1993, s284 / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Held: claim based on property ownership not debt so Tribunal has jurisdiction / Tribunal regularly deals with interpretation of contracts so no need to transfer to DC / trailer in a deliverable state / applicant had title to trailer / ownership transferred on payment & attaching plates signified intention to transfer / respondent liable for conversion / applicant deliberately excluded from possession by respondent / claim allowed / respondent ordered to pay $12,737.05 to applicant.

  2. HY v RB & YR [2019] NZDT 1217 (7 October 2019) [PDF, 167 KB]

    Contract / applicant purchased property from respondent & discovered road was being constructed on its boundary / applicant not notified of works or consent given by vendors / property used for grazing horses & AirBnB business / applicant claimed she would not have purchased property or would have negotiated a lower price if notified of works / Held: vendors had a duty under vendor warranty to advise applicant of consent / property directly affected by works due to noise & activity / applicant suffered loss & entitled to compensation / no direct financial loss to business or value of property but indirect loss of what was contracted for or loss of the bargain / failure to notify took away applicant’s right to negotiate on different terms / other losses included distress & disappointment from reduced outlook from property, loss of peace of surroundings & physical inconvenience & nuisance from dust, traffic & noise / claim allowed / vendors ordered to pay applicant $15,000 in damages

  3. HX v RC [2019] NZDT 1215 (17 May 2019) [PDF, 159 KB]

    Contract / applicant purchased house from respondent which had ongoing repayments due to Council / applicant claimed repayments not disclosed in negotiations or agreement for sale & purchase in breach of vendor warranties / obligation to make repayments included in LIM report / Held: no obligation on real estate agent to bring obligation to attention of applicant / reasonable expectation that reading LIM would clearly convey information / no breach of vendor warranties because no arrears at settlement & repayments disclosed in LIM / claim dismissed

  4. FR v TI [2019] NZDT 1145 (12 April 2019) [PDF, 80 KB]

    Contract for services / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant contracted to test and maintain fire and sprinkler systems at apartments owned by Respondent to a standard required by local Council / service contract provided for monthly inspections in addition to callouts / callouts attracted extra fees / two false alarms triggered by insect larvae and webs inside the detectors / Applicant claiming for payment of the two false alarm callouts / Respondent argues Applicant failed contractual duties to maintain alarm system / Held: Applicant failed to provide its services with reasonable care and in manner fit for purpose / Applicant knew that insects were an issue with false alarms but did not advise the Respondent of this or how to avoid this issue / further, response time to second false alarm excessive / claim dismissed

  5. GM v SNS Ltd [2018] NZDT 1116 (26 September 2018) [PDF, 100 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent repaired leak in Applicant’s hot water cylinder / Applicant paid original invoice in full / hot water cylinder leaking again one month later / Applicant seeks declaration of liability to be made / Held: no evidence first repair not carried out with reasonable care and skill / second leak in distinct area not connected with first leak’s repair / no evidence workmanship on first repair caused second leak / Respondent not responsible for leak / fee for second repair not unreasonable / claim dismissed / Applicant to pay second invoice of $290.95

  6. HLL Ltd v RO [2018] NZDT 1133 (6 July 2018) [PDF, 88 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant carried out roofing work on building owned by Respondent / Respondent sought compensation for poor workmanship and damage to building / Applicant counterclaimed for amount outstanding / whether roofing work carried out with reasonable care and skill under s28 / whether failures substantial & if so, how much was owed under contract / Held: work did not comply with s28 as it was undertaken in a storm & was not completed to an adequate standard / failures substantial & resonable consumer test met / Respondent entitled to refund of labour & contribution to consequential loss / Applicant enitled to payment towards sums expended on material / Respondent ordered to pay $6,504.12 to Applicant / claim allowed

  7. FN v TMM Ltd & TM [2018] NZDT 1067 (6 July 2018) [PDF, 107 KB]

    Contract / passing of ownership / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant advertised ice-cream machine on TradeMe / Respondent agreed to pay a non-refundable $500 deposit on machine and pay for transportation in order to inspect machine / parties agreed if machine passed inspection, Respondent would pay the remaining $6,500 for the machine / despite Applicant and Respondent’s agent damaged machine when loading it for inspection, machine taken to Respondent for inspection / due to damage, Respondent did not accept machine  / Applicant seeks remainder of purchase price and $180 for filing the claim with the Tribunal / Held: property in goods transfers on acceptance, per ss 144 and 146 of the Contracts and Commercial Law Act 2017 / parties agreed acceptance would occur if and when machine passed inspection /  / despite Respondent’s agent’s involvement in damage occurring to machine, risk passers with property, unless otherwise agreed, per s 148 / machine remained in Applicant’s r...

  8. GL v SOO Ltd [2018] NZDT 1093 (15 June 2018) [PDF, 116 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a tent from Respondent to live in while new home built / minor defects in tent and size incorrectly stated on Respondent’s website / Applicant seeks to reject tent and receive a refund / no evidence that Applicant contributed to any damage to tent / Held: goods supplied by description are guaranteed to comply with that description / s 9, CGA / tent 23 per cent smaller than advertised / therefore, tent not compliant with description given and not of acceptable quality / as floor area of tent cannot be remedied, issue of whether tent defects were pre-existing or caused by Applicant does not need to be addressed for acceptable quality claim / insufficient evidence Applicant damaged tent after purchase / therefore, Applicant entitled to reject tent under s 20, CGA / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to refund $4850 to Applicant

  9. HK & KP v RPP Ltd [2018] NZDT 1133 (9 May 2018) [PDF, 74 KB]

    Contract / Building Act 2004 / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent installed cladding to Applicants’ home during its construction / Applicants claimed sealant used failed & required replacement / sealant used not the one specified in plans / whether respondnet breached performance obligation & if so, did that cause loss / Held: implied warranties under Building Act applied to work & work needed to comply with Building Code / sealant failed & Respondent in breach of implied warranties / loss related to remedial work to remove & replace sealant / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $15, 000 / claim allowed.

  10. GJG ltd v SQS Ltd [2018] NZDT 1072 (26 April 2018) [PDF, 290 KB]

    Breach of Contract / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant offered Respondent Facebook marketing package over uninvited phone call / Applicant assured Respondent that fee of $99 plus GST was all Respondent would pay “today” for “ad creation” / Respondent provided payment details / Applicant emailed twelve-month contract and “ad creation” to Respondent for approval, then  deducted two payments for the twelve-month period totalling $5,451.00 / Respondent claims only agreed to initial fee payment, claims full refund of second and third payments Held: while Respondent told only $99 plus GST fee would be charged “today”, Applicant intended to deducted $5,564.85 / misleading conduct / FTA, s 9 / breach of contract /Applicant acted without authority deducting more than the $99 plus GST / claim allowed, Applicant to refund the $5,451 to the Respondent

  11. FC v TX [2018] NZDT 1053 (23 April 2018) [PDF, 98 KB]

    Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / transfer of title / Applicant purchased motorbike from Respondent / bike had been stolen from its original owner and was sold to the Respondent / Police advised Applicant to return bike to its original owner/ Applicant claimed return of the purchase price, plus transport costs and filing fee / Held: bike stolen property / seller cannot pass on title to a good that he or she does not have / implied condition which entitles buyer to a refund and costs if seller does not have title / exceptions to rule did not apply / absence of conviction and  fact that Respondent had possession of goods did not affect the true owner’s rights / Respondent liable to refund purchase price of bike and cost of transporting it back to original owner, but not filing fee / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $6,850.00

  12. FJ Ltd v TQ Ltd [2018] NZDT 1066 (20 April 2018) [PDF, 82 KB]

    Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / implied condition that goods will be reasonably fit for purpose / Applicant purchased a second-hand tyre for a light truck from Respondent / the tyre failed six weeks after installation / Held: tyre not reasonably fit for purpose / tyre was designed for a passenger car, not a light truck / Respondent liable for damages being the loss directly and naturally resulting from the breach of warranty / repair and towing costs / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant amount claimed of $769.25

  13. FI v TR Ltd [2018] NZDT 1065 (12 April 2018) [PDF, 85 KB]

    Contract / Applicant hired campervan from Respondent / Applicant paid for collision damage waiver / waiver meant excess could be waived under certain conditions / conditions required applicant to exercise reasonable care / Applicant drove campervan under beam that was lower than its height, causing damage / Respondent deducted excess / Applicant claimed waiver covered damage / Held:  Applicant failed to take reasonable care in driving vehicle / Applicant failed to notice clearance signs / Applicant lost right to be indemnified through terms and conditions of contract / claim dismissed

  14. FG v TT [2018] NZDT 1060 (9 March 2018) [PDF, 134 KB]

    Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / sale of goods / Respondent supplied grapevine rootstocks to Applicant / Applicant examined rootstocks after delivery during processing period/ Applicant rejected a number of rootstocks and invoiced Respondent for that amount / Respondent disputed timeframe for rejection / Applicant claimed invoiced amount, legal fees and interest / Respondent claimed rootstocks were not rejected within a reasonable time / Held: goods rejected within a reasonable time / reasonable timeframe for examining goods determined as processing period / given nature of goods and quantity supplied, reasonable for Applicant to examine goods over processing period  / no particular loss to Respondent as a result of being notified after delivery / no provision in contract for payment of legal fees / Respondent liable to pay part of invoiced amount as at date of notification, plus interest / Respondent ordered to pay $999.81 to applicant.

  15. GO v SSL Ltd [2017] NZDT 1147 (12 October 2017) [PDF, 108 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent carpeted Applicant’s house / four years later, Applicant noticed worn area under stool and other bald patches / Applicant believed carpet defective / Respondent inspected site and sent carpet to be tested by New Zealand Wool Testing Authority / tests confirmed carpet twice as strong as NZ minimum standard / Respondent refused to replace carpet as damage caused by excessive wear and Applicant’s dog / Applicant argues a fault in ‘bonding delamination’ / claims full carpet replacement / Held: carpet of acceptable quality / damage caused by excessive use over four years and Applicant’s dog likely to have contributed to bald patches / no breach of guarantee of acceptable quality / claim dismissed

  16. FA & FAA v TZ & TZZ [2017] NZDT 1048 (18 July 2017) [PDF, 90 KB]

    Contract / Contractual Remedies Act 1979 (CRA) / Cancellation of contract / Applicants signed up for gym memberships at Respondent’s gym / Applicants stopped paying monthly fees and sought to cancel contract / guidelines booklet stated membership could not be cancelled if arrears were on the account / Respondent suspended access and invoiced Applicants  for membership fees and late fees / Applicants sought a declaration that they were not liable for fees because contract had been cancelled / Held: Respondent gave applicants insufficient notice of onerous term in guidelines booklet / term never became part of contract due to insufficient notice / applicants entitled to terminate membership despite being in arrears / Respondent not entitled to suspend access / contract did not provide for suspension / Respondent in breach of contract / Applicants entitled to cancel under CRA / Applicants ordered to pay fees for 10 days until suspension and one late payment fee

  17. EV v UE Ltd 2017 [NZDT] 1015 (1 June 2017) [PDF, 100 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased lounge suite from respondent / lounge suite sold “as is – no return available” at a discounted price / Applicant notified Respondent of a cracked beam / Respondent offered a “one-off frame repair, at no charge out of goodwill” / Applicant did not believe repair would remedy the issue /  Applicant claimed full refund / Held: lounge suite not of acceptable quality / cracked beam was a failure of substantial character / reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the nature of the failure would not have purchased the suite / Applicant entitled to reject goods and receive a full refund / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2,799 and Respondent to collect suite at its own expense.

  18. EX v UC [2017] NZDT 1011 (24 May 2017) [PDF, 20 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants purchased a clothes dryer from Respondent with an extended warranty / dryer underwent repairs during warranty period / Applicant claimed dryer still in need of repair / Respondent’s agent inspected dryer and found no repair required / Applicant claimed dryer not durable / Applicant wished to reject the good and receive refund of purchase price, cost of  extended warranty and  Tribunals’ filing fee / Held: cause of failures not sufficiently established / Tribunal could not exclude  possibility of user issues / no breach of guarantee in terms of durability or fitness for purpose / no remedy under Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 available / claim dismissed

  19. EW Ltd v UD & UDD 2017 [NZDT] 1010 (17 May 2017) [PDF, 154 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Sale of Goods Act 1908 / Applicant purchased computer system and CCTV cameras from Respondent for its first shop / cameras in first shop did not work properly when reinstalled in Applicant’s second shop / Applicant examined system and purchased it for its second shop without raising any issues / Applicant claimed full refund on the basis that the functionality of the goods was not satisfactory and did not meet Applicant’s expectations / Held: insufficient evidence to prove goods were defective / no breach of guarantee under Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / no breach of implied warranties under Sale of Goods Act 1908 / goods of merchantable quality and fit for the purpose it was intended / claim dismissed.

  20. FM Ltd v TN [2017] NZDT 1005 (26 April 2017) [PDF, 113 KB]

    Negligence / Respondent’s truck and trailer unit was stationary at a wide single lane intersection to turn left onto road / Applicant saw some space to the left of respondent’s truck and trailer unit, and drove into this, with the intention of also turning left / but, unable to proceed as Respondent’s vehicle obscuring his view / Respondent indicating left during this time / when Respondent began left turn, his vehicle collided with Applicant’s vehicle / Applicant seeking $15,000 toward costs of repairs / duty of care / Road User Rules 2.5, 2.6 and 2.8 / no evidence Respondent further to right than practicably necessary for turn / Applicant not engaged in passing manoeuvre as unable to proceed due to position of Respondent’s vehicle / even if able to keep moving, manoeuvre not one that could be made safely or without impeding vehicle with right of way / Held: Applicant placed his vehicle in harm’s way in an unusual and unsafe manoeuvre / Applicant had not driven with the care expected ...

  21. EY v UB [2017] NZDT 1002 (13 April 2017) [PDF, 78 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant contracted Respondent to deliver a dirt bike / Respondent did not have cartage insurance / bike was stolen off back of Respondent’s truck / Applicant claimed value/purchase price of bike / Applicant claimed Respondent negligent in leaving bike unsecured and unattended / Held: carriage of goods done at “limited carrier’s risk” / no written agreement / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2000.00

  22. FQQ Ltd v TJ [2017] NZDT 1044 (11 April 2017) [PDF, 124 KB]

    Contract / authority to purchase / Second Respondent worked for First Respondent / Second Respondent purchased personal items from Applicant using First Respondent’s business account / First Respondent only paid for items he had authorised / Applicant wants money owed on the account from Second Respondent’s purchases / Applicant had not ascertained Second Respondent was authorised to make those purchases / Held: no actual or apparent authority which bound the First Respondent to pay for Second Respondent’s debt incurred / Applicant has no contractual right to recover from First Respondent / Second Respondent to pay Applicant for items purchased in personal capacity / claim against First Appellant dismissed