Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants purchased a caravan from the Respondent / While they were on holiday they discovered wear to a tyre inside edge / Vehicle was taken to an engineering company, which repaired the axle and rewelded the axle stub before the vehicle was taken for a tyre replacement / Applicants claimed the stub had been welded to the axle out of square, so the damage to the tyre was caused by a manufacturing fault / Applicants claimed $1,477.07, being the cost of repair and new tyre as well as $115.00 for a night of accommodation while the caravan was being repaired / Held: Applicants established it was more likely than not that the caravan was not of acceptable quality / Respondent ordered to pay full claimed amount of $1,447.07 to Applicant / Claim allowed.  

Negligence / Respondents' shed blown off in a windstorm / Shed damaged Applicant's power pole / Applicant claimed compensation from Respondent / Respondents denied liability / Held: Respondents' shed struck pole and caused it to break / Applicant provided warnings that it should ensure outdoor items which could be blown about in storms be removed or secured / Respondents liable for damages / Risk of shed being blown in very high wind and causing damage must be regarded as foreseeable / Respondents liable to compensate Applicant for damages / Respondents ordered to pay Applicant $9,450.72 / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants purchased dresser from Respondent / Applicants claimed dresser's timber began to break apart while putting together / Applicant sought refund of purchase price, shipping cost and filing fee / Respondent claimed damage caused by incorrect installing of screws and therefore not covered under manufacturer's warranty / Held: middle panel of dresser is not of acceptable quality / Substantial failure / Drawers cannot be put together securely with a weakened middle panel / Replacement not available within reasonable time / Applicant entitled to refund of purchase price / Tribunal unable to make order relating to filing fee / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $397 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Building Act 2004 / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicant contracted Respondent to build carport pergola / Applicant said carport was not built with reasonable care and skill and was not fit for purpose / Applicant claimed $10,000 reimbursement / Respondent counter-claimed $7,000 for additional work and mental distress / Held: Respondent installed pergola without building consent / Respondent's work was a substantial breach and Applicant was entitled to cancel contract / Tribunal cannot make an order against First Respondent personally under its jurisdiction in tort / First Respondent engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct causing loss to Applicant / Applicant entitled to refund less money owed to Respondent / Respondents ordered to pay Applicant $9,500 / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant purchased car from Respondent which was manufactured by 2nd Respondent / Applicant experienced issues with sudden power loss / Applicant took car to be checked by Respondent on 4 occasions over 6 year period but no issues identified / Applicant claimed $30,000 and said 2nd Respondent was deliberately hiding defect by turning off Engine Management System (EMS) features or that Respondent had failed to check coolant levels during service / Held: Car was likely of acceptable quality when Respondent sold it and Respondent had provided services with reasonable car and skill / Unlikely car had latent defect and no evidence EMS features had been or could be turned off / Applicant had several months of trouble-free driving between each power loss / Respondent unable to replicate power loss issues during checks / Applicant declined options Respondent suggested to further investigate issues / Compensation unavailable as no Respondents…

Contract / Applicant booked Respondent's accommodation / Upon arrival, Applicant discovered accommodation was not a separate accommodation with its own bathroom / Accommodation shared between Applicant and Respondent / Applicant and Respondent's living relationship deteriorated / Applicant left accommodation after being asked by Respondent / Applicant claimed for bond paid, reimbursement of excess rent, hotel accommodation charge and parcel not received / Held: Respondent obliged to reimburse bond and balance of rent paid / "No refund" term set aside as harsh and unconscionable / Respondent terminated accommodation agreement / No order to reimburse hotel expenses and parcel not received / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $5,709.71 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Misrepresentation / Respondent purchased Applicant's café fit-out and stock / Disputes arose regarding conditions of premises, electrical work, arrears owed by Applicant, and equipment lease under fixed term contract / Applicant declined Respondent's request to terminate contract / Respondent sold café to another company and did not pay remaining invoice / Applicant claimed outstanding contract price payment plus amount payable for lease contract / Held: Applicant did not fail to disclose information / Respondent failed to prove misrepresentation / No breach of contract / No damages available to Respondent / Respondent breached contract by failing to pay outstanding balance / Respondent not liable to pay remainder of four-year fixed term leased equipment / Second Respondent ordered to pay Applicants $10,000 / Respondent's counter-claim dismissed / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicant engaged Respondent for landscaping services including a patio area with ramp and steps and a retaining wall / Concrete steps on patio were not polished after it was agreed they could be renovated rather than replaced / Retaining wall was smaller than agreed and was not filled in properly / Quote had included new steps and a retaining wall / Applicant claimed for Respondent to complete agreed work or pay $16040 compensation / Held: work was not completed as agreed and not completed with reasonable care and skill / Reasonable that Applicant expected steps to look close to new and retaining wall was much smaller than what area needed / Path constructed by Respondent has poor finish and was uneven in places / Even though work done at lower price than mark, what Respondent delivered it was  worth less than what Applicant paid / Amount claimed by Applicant unreasonable / Applicant entitled to partial refund / Res…

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants contracted Respondent to grind and resurface their driveway / Applicants claimed resurfaced driveway is cracking, did not have a smooth finish, and edges were not straight / Applicants claimed Respondent liable to pay them $19,000 / Held: driveway overlay not laid with reasonable care and skill by Respondent / Final product of Respondent's work not reasonably fit for purpose / Respondent liable to pay Applicant damages / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $19,000 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicant discussed buying car from Respondent and was shown one he was interested in buying subject to satisfactory test-drive / Applicant test drove vehicle but cancelled deal after not agreeing satisfactory price with Respondent / Respondent refused to refund deposit and Applicant claims $2000 damages to reflect this / Applicant paid deposit believing Respondent would lower price for car and was not told deposit was nonrefundable unless Applicant was unhappy with test drive / Held: Respondent was not required to refund deposit to Applicant / Deposit not generally refundable in a sale of goods as purchaser takes risk of purchaser changing their mind about purchase / Contract for sale became unconditional and binding after Applicant was happy with test drive / Paying deposit confirmed Applicant wished to purchase at listed price and no obligation on Respondent to explain deposit nonrefundable / Deposit was reasonable as less than 5% of purchase price / Applicant had pulled …

Consumer law / Applicant joined a gym in October 2022 / Membership fees were $251 per month and were automatically deducted from his account  / In December 2022, Applicant advised a gym staff member in person that he wanted to cancel his membership / Applicant was not advised he was required to do anything further / 16 months later, Applicant noticed fees were still being deducted from his account / Applicant requested a backdated refund / Applicant was advised the membership would be cancelled but they could not provide a refund  / Applicant claimed for refund of fees / Noted that the Respondent took over the business in April 2023 / Held: no evidence to support verbal notice claim / Applicant did not give notice in writing, as required by the contract / Claim notice of cancellation was given not proven / Reasonable to consider failure of the Applicant to ensure his membership was cancelled / Reasonable to consider the Respondent automatically renewed the contract every three months w…

Consumer law / Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased bag online from the Respondent which was advertised as being a designer / Applicant claimed the Respondent misrepresented the bag in the advertisement / Applicant claimed $1,515.00 / Held: bag was certified as a fake / Statement that the bag was bought from a designed store was false / Applicant was induced to buy the bag based on the representation that it was from a designer store / Applicant would not have purchased the bag if she had known it was a not a genuine designer bag / Respondent ordered to pay $1,186.00 / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicants purchased a bracelet online / Applicants alleged the bracelet was misrepresented in the advertisement/ Applicants wanted to return the bracelet and receive a refund / Held:  it is for the potential buyer to fully acquaint themselves with the detail of the advertisement and what they are buying / Prudent person does not rely on only one statement in an advertisement / Advertisement did not misrepresent the bracelet / Claim dismissed.