You can search by selecting a jurisdiction, a keyword (for example a name) or browse by year - 2018 is the most recent year that selected Disputes Tribunal decisions were published. 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

247 items matching your search terms

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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.

  5. 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

  6. 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.

  7. 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

  8. 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.

  9. 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

  10. ER v UI Ltd [2017] NZDT 998 (16 February 2017) [PDF, 130 KB]

    Guarantee / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant enrolled in course of study and paid fees to Respondent institution / Applicant withdrew from course 11 days after its commencement / Applicant claimed he could not understand lecturer and lecturer’s teaching style was poor / enrolment form provided for a refund of fees if withdrawal was within 8 days of course commencing or there were exceptional circumstances / Applicant claimed reason for withdrawing was exceptional and Respondent failed its guarantee as to service provided / Applicant claimed refund of fees / Held: no failure of guarantee / inadequate evidence to prove failure / Respondent provided service with reasonable care and skill and service was fit for purpose / circumstances not exceptional / claim dismissed

  11. EN & ENE v UM & UMU [2017] NZDT 997 (10 Febrary 2017) [PDF, 79 KB]

    Fencing / Fencing Act 1978 / Applicant’s cows crossed over to Respondent’s neighbouring property / Applicant claimed fence in need of repair / Applicant issued fencing notice on Respondent / repairs carried out within days of notice / Applicant claimed half the cost of fence repairs / Held: Respondent not liable to pay for repairs / repairs carried out before notice period was up / fence not destroyed or damaged by sudden accident or other cause / claim dismissed

  12. DX v VC Ltd [2016] NZDT 938 (27 January 2017) [PDF, 140 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a couch from Respondent / wooden slats of couch broke / Applicant claimed full refund of couch / Held: damage was caused by failure of the wood and construction method and not by inconsistent use of couch by Applicant / couch not of acceptable quality / failure of goods not substantial / Applicant gave Respondent chance of remedy and Respondent refused to do so within reasonable time / Applicant could return the couch despite Respondent’s no return policy / damage caused by hidden defects so Applicant could only have known of faults when wood broke / Applicant not taken unreasonable length of time to ask for refund / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant full refund of $1,596.00 for couch and Applicant to return couch to Respondent at her cost. 

  13. EP v UK LTD & UKU LTD 2016 NZDT 893 (7 December 2016) [PDF, 137 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant delivered vehicle to the first Respondent for repair / first Respondent repaired vehicle and issued invoice to Applicant / Applicant paid part of invoice amount / first Respondent asked second Respondent to look at vehicle due to a further problem / second Respondent gave preliminary diagnosis but received no further instructions from first Respondent / vehicle delivered back to Applicant after some months / Applicant claimed original issue not resolved, vehicle not driveable and had cosmetic issues / Applicant claimed refund of amount paid, declaration of non-liability for balance of amount invoiced and compensation for tow, registration, insurance and repair costs / Held: Applicant did not have a contractual relationship with second Respondent / second Respondent not contractually liable to Applicant / first Respondent did not perform service with reasonable care and skill / first Respondent had Applicant’s car in their possession f...

  14. EO v UL LTD 2016 NZDT 979 (17 November 2016) [PDF, 139 KB]

    Negligence / Respondent’s digger bucket fell onto motorway / Applicant drove car into Respondent’s digger bucket / Applicant’s car damaged / Applicant claimed Respondent’s driver was negligent for not securing his load / Respondent claimed digger bucket had been stolen / Applicant claimed losses resulting from damage to car / Held: digger bucket fell off trailer driven by employee of Respondent / Respondent’s driver failed to adequately secure his load and was negligent / no contributory negligence on Applicant’s part / Respondent vicariously liable for driver’s negligent actions and liable to pay for Applicant’s reasonable losses / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $5975.

  15. DN v VM [2016] NZDT 971 (19 October 2016) [PDF, 21 KB]

    Contract / Applicant purchased residential property from Respondent at auction / Applicant later found the Bon-Air Vulcan ducted gas heating system would not work / claims $9,731.32 for diagnosis and replacement of system / Held: gas heating system is not a chattel and therefore not covered by vendor warranties in Sale of Real Estate by Auction contract / gas heating system is a fixture that was part of the property sold and there is no requirement to provide fixtures in any particular condition / no basis in law for claim of compensation / claim dismissed

  16. FH Ltd v TS Ltd [2016] NZDT 1037 (26 September 2016) [PDF, 81 KB]

    Misrepresentation / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicant purchased forklift from  Respondent / forklift advertised as a demo model with low hours / Applicant claimed battery needed replacing / age of forklift represented as near new when it was a 2004 model / Applicant claimed refund of purchase price / Held: silence can constitute misleading conduct / description gave rise to a duty to clarify forklift was not near new / failure to clarify constituted misleading conduct / forklift’s worth significantly less than price paid / claim allowed / Applicant entitled to cancel contract and get full refund / Respondent ordered to pay $9,200 to applicant and collect forklift at own cost

  17. FF v TU and TUU [2016] NZDT 1035 (21 September 2016) [PDF, 145 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / guarantee of acceptable quality / Applicant purchased a vehicle from a private seller / vehicle originally imported by second Respondent / vehicle used to transport costumes / vehicle’s transmission failed / Applicant claimed cost of repairs to transmission / Held: Vehicle failed to be as durable as a reasonable consumer would have expected / Applicant was a “consumer” under CGA / vehicle ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use or consumption / vehicle not used in an unreasonable manner or to an unreasonable extent / second Respondent as an importer came within the definition of “manufacturer” under CGA / consumer not required to give manufacturer an opportunity to remedy fault unless it is covered by a contractual warranty / cost of repairing transmission reasonably foreseeable / Respondents jointly liable to pay Applicant $3,978.09.

  18. DU & DUD v VF & Ors [2016] 956 (12 September 2016) [PDF, 135 KB]

    Contract / Civil Aviation Act 1990, s.91Z / Applicants booked return flights with Second Respondent and second flight was cancelled / Applicants booked a replacement flight with different airline / Second Respondent refunded fare of $343 / Applicants seek compensation of $1,999.99 for undue stress and extra costs incurred due to the cancellation and necessity to book another flight at a later date / Held: a carrier is liable for damages caused by delay unless delay made necessary by force majeure (unforeseeable circumstances) / mechanical breakdown is a foreseeable event / carrier not liable if they take all necessary steps to avoid damage or it is not possible to take those steps / Respondent delayed decision to cancel flight to a point where passengers would struggled to get alternative flights or accommodation / Respondent only operated one aeroplane and had no replacement / Respondent bears this as a business risk / Terms and Conditions purporting to limit Respondent’s liability ha...

  19. DV v VE [2016] NZDT 970 (22 August 2016) [PDF, 22 KB]

    Negligence / motor vehicle collision / Applicant was riding motor scooter when a vehicle turned right across her path / Applicant claims losses from damage to scooter that was uneconomic to repair / Respondent denies being the driver of the car and knew nothing about the collision before receiving notice of proceedings / Held: on balance of probabilities, Respondent was the driver of the vehicle / Respondent failed to check that all lanes were clear before turning right / Respondent liable for reasonable losses / claim allowed, Respondent to pay Applicant $3,554 in replacement costs.

  20. EQ & EQQ v UJ Ltd & UJU [2016] NZDT 955 (17 August 2016) [PDF, 87 KB]

    Negligence / Applicants purchased house / Respondent painted house before it was sold to the Applicants / paint work deteriorated / Applicants repainted house / Applicants claimed cost of repainting house from Respondent / Held: Respondent did not owe Applicants a duty of care / Building Act 2004 does not cover painting / no physical damage or safety concerns / only original recipient of a service can enforce guarantee under the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / insufficient proximity between painter and subsequent homeowners / claim dismissed

  21. FE v TVL [2016] NZDT 966 (3 August 2016) [PDF, 132 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / guarantee of reasonable skill and care / Applicant engaged Respondent to paint fence / surface bubbling appeared six months after fence was painted / inspection report found paint job was not the cause of bubbling / Applicant did not accept report and claimed cost of remedying the problem / Held: Respondent did not breach guarantee of reasonable skill and care / Respondent did not misapply coatings / Respondent used correct products / likely cause of bubbling was an underlying moisture problem /no evidence to suggest Respondent should have identified moisture problem /  nothing to suggest Respondent caused or contributed to problem / Respondent not liable for cost of remedying problem / claim dismissed.

  22. ET & ETT v UG Ltd & UGG [2016] NZDT 962 (13 July 2016) [PDF, 147 KB]

    Contract / Applicants chartered a boat from Respondent / boat returned to port three days before end of charter period due to bad weather / Respondent offered Applicants a refund / Applicants disputed amount of refund / Respondent’s terms and conditions provided for a 50 per cent refund / Respondent claimed 50 per cent refund only applied to pre-departure cancellations / Applicants interpreted refund to apply when all other conditions met / Applicants claimed refund of 50 per cent of pro-rata fee for unused three days / Held: Applicants entitled to a refund of 50 per cent of the remaining day’s charter fee / Respondent’s terms and conditions ambiguous / wording did not indicate that 50 per cent refund only applied to pre-departure cancellations / doctrine of contra proferentem favoured Applicants’ interpretation / all other conditions met / claim allowed

  23. EH Ltd v US [2016] NZDT 963 (18 July 2016) [PDF, 127 KB]

    Contract / Minor Contract Act 1969 (MCA) / Respondent bid and won a car auction for $2515.00 on Trade Me / Applicant and Trade Me unable to contact Respondent about the purchase / Applicant relisted the car a month later and it sold for $1670.00 / Respondent was a 17-year-old high school student and was in breach of Trade Me’s terms and conditions that users must be 18 years old / Applicant claims damages for the price difference and other costs incurred for second auction / Held: the contract was not part of a considered, negotiated bargain / Respondent did not think she would win the auction as there had been strong competition before she placed her bid / Applicant expected Respondent to be an adult / Respondent failed to communicate her age in a timely manner / placing bids in an online auction is the sort of contract the MCA is designed to protect minors against / contract cannot be enforced / an award of the full amount of damage not appropriate / loss component not included in th...

  24. ED Ltd v UW Ltd [2016] NZDT 922 (1 July 2016) [PDF, 144 KB]

    Contract / Respondent purchased Company B from Company A / Respondent assigned the licence and supply agreement that Company A has with the Applicant / Applicant claimed $15,000.00 for Respondent’s breach of the agreement / Held: Respondent breached cl 8.4 of agreement by not checking whether the Applicant had the items in stock before using another supplier / Applicant breached cl 8.3 of agreement by failing to attempt to supply stock from an alternative supplier when it did not have the item in stock itself / this breach was not a defence to Respondent’s breach of cl 8.4 / meaning of cl 4.7 raised issue of ambiguity / cl 4.7 inserted specifically when Company A purchased business from Company B  so should be treated as having a different meaning than cl 8.4 / Respondent entitled to flexible product sourcing options under cl 4.7 / no evidence showing cl 4.7 not meant to include subsequent buyers of the business / principle of contra proferentum applies so contract is interpreted again...