Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract /Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Respondent engaged Applicant to design structural engineering requirements for extension to home / Applicant provided written agreement with estimated prices to Respondent which later increased due to design changes / Applicant issued two invoices which Respondent disputed as they were only willing to pay for work originally quoted / Applicant claimed payment of invoices plus interest / Held: Respondent changed scope of work which increased structural design work / The initial estimate was not fixed price contract until project requirements were more firmly established / Insufficient evidence Applicant breached contract by failing to provide services within reasonable time / Respondent never raised delay concerns with Applicant / CGA not breached as Applicant never briefed to design most cost effective solution but to incorporate Respondent’s preferences / Applicant did not breach agreement so Respond…

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant contracted Respondent for bathroom renovations / Applicant claimed poor project management and faulty workmanship / Project completed over 20 months after it began / Applicant claimed $22,000 compensation / Held: Respondent’s failures amounted to substantial breach of CGA / Respondent did not carry out renovations with reasonable care and skill / Wrong unit was ordered, installed poorly and persisted with ineffective fixes / Resulted in renovation not completed within reasonable time / Reduction in value of service appropriate compensation for the breach / Recognition given to Respondent for completing project despite issues / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $10,000 / Claim allowed in part.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant purchased gaming massage chair from Respondent for $1,180 / Within six  months chair failed which Respondent repaired / A year later chair failed again / Respondent claimed warranty expired and refused to remedy unless Applicant paid labour or parts costs / Applicant refused / Once claim lodged in Tribunal Respondent offered repair or replacement / Applicant rejected that and claimed $1,980 equivalent to cost of purchasing comparable chair / Held: chair covered by warranty under CGA / Reasonable consumer would expect the chair to be operational two years later / Applicant offered Respondent reasonable opportunity to remedy and Respondent’s refusal precluded them from subsequent reliance on that right / Applicant entitled to full refund of purchase price but not entitled to cost of replacing chair / Respondent ordered to pay $1,180 / Claim allowed in part.

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.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant stored belongings in Respondent's storage unit but found they had mould and rat droppings once removed / Applicant claimed $30,000 for refund of storage fees and compensation of damaged goods / Held: no breach of contract or CGA by Respondent in respect of mould / Applicant had not proved mould was caused by Respondent / Respondent failed to exercise proper care and skill or provide product that was reasonably fit for purpose in respect of rat contamination /  Respondent knew of rat issue but did not alert owners which amounted to failure of substantial character / Damage to some items not proved by Applicant / Respondent ordered to pay compensation for rat damage / Respondent ordered to pay $8,400.00 for compensation and refund of portion of storage fees / Claim allowed in part.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA) / Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) / Hybrid van purchased by Applicant from Respondent for $28,855.75 including an insurance policy / Applicant noticed issues including uneven brake disc causing shaking, battery failure,  leaking sunroof, large areas of paint peeling, shock absorber and engine mount issues / Applicant claimed refund of $28,855.75 and return of van / Held: CGA did not apply due to Applicant using van for business purposes and written agreement to contract out / Mechanical issues attributed to fair wear and tear given age and mileage / Applicant provided no invoices showing he had taken van to recommended service centre / Inspection report did not confirm engine mount had been replaced / Paint damage possibly due to lack of care / Mechanical insurance covered battery replacement but not insurance was not used by Applicant / Failure to mitigate loss by not claiming under insurance /…

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 ‘CGA’ / Respondent contracted Applicant to do building work for their home / Applicant claimed Respondent did not pay full price for work / Applicant claimed $5477.39 / Respondent counterclaimed and states Applicant charged too much for work and seeks refund of $3000 / Held: Respondent charged between the estimates quoted by Applicant / Respondent had agreed to pay that estimated amount / Amount charged was not unreasonable / Respondent liable to pay to outstanding invoice / Referee accepted Applicant damaged weatherboard during work in breach of reasonable care and skill guarantee in CGA / Respondent entitled to refund of $400 for weatherboard damage / Respondent to pay Applicant $5,077.39 / Claim accepted / Counterclaim accepted in part.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Accident Compensation Act 2001 (ACA) / Applicant engaged Respondent for dental services for a bridge replacement / Applicant had multiple bridge treatments from Respondent / Applicant experienced ongoing pain and later had tooth extracted and implant fitted / Applicant claimed $28,344 for refund of fees, further dental costs, general damages and expenses / Held: Applicant did not provided sufficient evidence that Respondent failed to exercise reasonable care and skill / Claim not barred by ACA as Applicant alleging Respondent failed to properly treat underlying condition not that Respondent caused treatment injury / CGA required reasonable care and skill, not guarantee of outcome / Respondent’s treatment decisions were clinically reasonable based on information available / Failure of overlay bridge explained by design limitations / Respondent replaced bridges at no cost and referred to specialist when appropriate / Insufficient eviden…

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant's vehicle broke down and was taken to Respondent for repairs / Respondent invoiced $1,670.41 for various repair services / Applicant requested a breakdown of labour costs but received no response / Applicant's father paid invoice to recover vehicle from Respondent / Applicant claimed Respondent unsatisfactorily carried out repair work to vehicle, carried unauthorised repairs and took an unreasonable time to complete work / Held: Respondent breached CGA when it replaced the sensors without consultation with Applicant / Respondent breached its obligation to carry out services within a reasonable time / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $997.13 / Claim allowed in part.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant purchased a rooftop tent from Respondent / Tent was used a few times before Applicant noticed cracks in the plastic shell, deteriorating waterproofing and damage to interior lining / Applicant contacted respondent and returned the tent to them at his own cost / Respondent applied sealant to the waterproofing and claimed other issues were due to wear and tear / At the hearing, Respondent acknowledged the cracks were likely manufacturing fault and offered a replacement tent which Applicant declined due to loss of trust / Applicant claimed $2,903.75 / Held: Tent was not of acceptable quality under the CGA due to cracks, waterproofing failure and poor durability / Respondent failed to remedy defects within a reasonable time / Applicant entitled to reject goods and receive a full refund / Respondent ordered to pay applicant $2,903.75 / Claim allowed in full.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) / Applicant booked flights with Respondent but accidentally booked opposite direction of intended travel / Applicant asked Respondent for refund or flight change / Respondent said fare type did not allow refund or free changes but Applicant could pay $1604 to change flights / Part of amount charged included $320 contact handling centre fee / Applicant claimed refund of $1064 additional flight change fees /  Held: Applicant made mistake but should have taken reasonable care to book flights in right direction / No remedy under CGA when consumer mistakenly purchases good or service / Not unfair under s 26A FTA for airline to impose charges for flexibility of fare types or flight changes / Respondent accepted they should not have imposed contact centre handling fee / Respondent to refund $320 contact centre handling fee to Applicant / Claim accepted in part.

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.