Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1986 (CGA) / Fair Trading Act 1993 (FTA) / Applicant was customer of Respondent who provided gas bottle deliveries / Applicant believed they were overcharged for 31 deliveries and was not told signing a 12 month contract would reduce rate charged or about other discounts / Respondent terminated services to Applicant following Applicant making complaint / Applicant claimed $1318 as refund of overcharged amount / Held: unproven that services provided by Respondent to Applicant breached the CGA / Applicant engaged Respondent on ongoing basis meaning either party could terminate arrangement / Respondent's terms and condition allow changes in pricing with notification to customers which Applicant had received / Reasonable service and price obligations on Respondent did not require standardised pricing nor informing customers of promotions / Customer's responsibility to seek information on the best deal for services / No breach of FTA for same reasons /…

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased ute from Respondent on basis it had new tyres, differential and WOF / Ute needed replacement clutch and rear differential and a turbo repair within months of purchase / Applicant claimed $15647 for repair costs / Held: Ute not of acceptable quality under CGA as reasonable consumer would not expect faults to key vehicle components to occur so shortly after purchase / CGA applies as ute was commonly used for personal use and parties had not contracted out of CGA in writing / Faults in culmination created failure of substantial character / Vehicle would have reduction in value below price paid but for repairs Applicant organised / Repair costs are fair and reasonable reflection of reduced value / Applicant entitled under s 18(3)(b) CGA to compensation of reduction in value / Respondent to pay Applicant $9385.17 / Claim accepted.

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 / Consumer Guarantee Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant purchased a puppy from Respondent / Subsequently, puppy was diagnosed with elbow dysplasia / Applicant claimed $6,048.36 from Respondent for the balance of treatment costs after insurance / Held: Respondent was not in trade as defined by CGA, therefore CGA did not apply to sale of this puppy / No representations were made about puppy’s health that induced Applicant’s decision to purchase puppy / Buyer beware applied / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Building Act 2004 (BA) / Respondent engaged Applicant to do several pieces of joinery and stone work in Respondent's house / Respondent paid 40% deposits  but subsequent invoices not paid although work continued / Respondents raised concerns with Applicants after delays, joinery work and stone benchtop quality / Applicants refused to continue work or remedy issues until payment made / Respondent refused further payment until work completed / Applicant claimed $30,000 for unpaid invoices / Respondent counterclaimed $30,000 / Held: No agreement about when work would be completed but Applicant liable for one month's delay regarding stone benchtops / All other work completed by Applicant in reasonable time under s 30 CGA and s362(1)(d)(2) BA / Applicant breached s 28 CGA and s 362 BA guarantees in respect of incorrectly installed media units, failing to install dishwasher front / Applicants liable for actions of its subcontractors / Appli…

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / 2nd Respondent drafted separation agreement under which Applicant's ex-wife to pay $15,000 on their son's 18th birthday / Applicant sought to recover debt after ex-wife failed to pay and 2nd Respondent drafted statement of claim (Statement) / In amended judgment Court awarded Applicant full interest on ex-wife’s payment until date of Court’s judgment / Applicant later advised by other lawyers that 2nd Respondent had improperly formulated Statement meaning Applicant could not recover interest at contract rate to date of payment by ex-wife and indemnity costs / Applicant claimed $6269.33 as difference in interest to date of payment and interest Applicant received / Held: 2nd Respondent could have sought interest to date of payment on applicable law but did not because of oversight / 2nd Respondent's oversight breached duty to exercise reasonable care and skill under s 28 CGA / Probability Court would have awarded interest to payment date was …

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant paid $1776.75 to Respondent for five cubic meters of concrete / Concrete arrived late and was too dry for laying / Applicant rejected the concrete and sought compensation / Applicant claimed $1,776.75 for costs of concrete, $1,552.50 for the cost of contractors, and $750 for his time and general damages / Held: Concrete was too dry at time of delivery and was not fit for purpose / This constituted a failure of substantial character under the CGA / Applicant entitled to reject concrete and claim a refund for amount paid / Applicant entitled to compensation for two hours of contractors’ time, being $154.75 and $80.50 / Applicant entitled to $143.14 for time he had to take off work for concrete to be laid / General damages not able to be awarded / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2,155.14 / Claim allowed in part.

Negligence / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicants made a payment of $5,300.00 after receiving an invoice receipt, which they believed to be from the Respondent / Applicants subsequently discovered that the email and related invoice were a scam / The deposit was not paid to the Respondent but to a bank account of the scammer / Applicants sought an order for the refund of the deposit from the Respondent / Held:  Applicants can make a claim pursuant to the CGA / Respondent did not exercise reasonable skill and care, as they did not have adequate cyber security protections / Respondent must repay the deposit ($5,300.00) to the Applicants / Claim allowed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant purchased a vehicle from Respondent for $9,700 after seeing it advertised online / Soon after purchase a dashboard light came on and multiple issues were found / Repairs were carried out for $6,900 / Applicant brought claim under CGA after discovering Respondent was the co-owner of a car dealership / Respondent explained this was a private sale on behalf of a friend and he was not acting in trade / Held: on evidence available, Respondent was selling car on behalf of his friend / Not proven Respondent was acting in trade / Consumer protections available under CGA do not apply to private sales / Only recourse for a buyer in a private sale is where there has been a misrepresentation / No misrepresentation appeared to have been made because advertisement did not state anything about vehicle’s mechanical condition or history / This was a situation where “buyer beware” applied / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant booked return flights through Respondent / Applicant missed first flight / Applicant was told his “no show” for the first flight meant that all flights on the ticket were forfeited / Applicant booked new flights / Applicant claimed $1,885.82 for international flights, calls incurred sorting the issue, and accommodation / Applicant also sought an order that Respondent was liable to pay return flight costs / Held: Respondent did not breach contract / Terms of the contract were sufficiently clear when Applicant agreed to them / Fare rules included a term that a failure to make a flight on the ticket could result in remaining flights being cancelled / Respondent did breach the CGA because after sales service was not provided with reasonable care and skill /  Applicant had to make multiple international calls to try to resolve matter at his own expense / Respondent ordered to reimburse Applicant $144.21 for international calls / Claim allo…

Consumer Law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants purchased a purebred dog from the Respondent for $4,500.00 / Dog subsequently became lame and was diagnosed with a hip condition / Applicants claimed $15,114.17, refund of purchase price and costs of the dog’s diagnosis and treatment / Held: sale of the dog was covered by the CGA / Dog was not fit for purpose as a purebred, as it cannot be shown or bred /  Respondent ordered to $9,500.00, $4,500.00 refund of sale price and $5000.00 towards medical payments / Claim allowed in part.

Contract law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased vehicle from Respondent / Vehicle overheated and went limp shortly after purchase / Applicant attempted to contact Respondent but he blocked them online / Applicant sought $9,000 payment refund and to return the vehicle to Respondent / Held: Respondent advertised other vehicles online, therefore CGA applies as he is deemed a supplier in trade to a consumer / Respondent breached CGA by supplying a vehicle not of acceptable quality / Applicant entitled to $9,000 purchase price refund from Respondent / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant purchased laptop from Respondent / Six years later, laptop developed a fault / Applicant had laptop investigated, was told it was no longer under warranty and was advised to buy a new laptop / Applicant sought an order that Respondent was liable to pay him the cost of his new laptop, $3,799.00, and the $99.00 fee he was charged to assess the problem, plus interest / Held: laptop had functioned well for just over 6 years before fault developed / Reasonable consumer would consider six years a reasonable period for laptop to last / No breach of CGA / Claim dismissed.