Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant purchased a boat from Respondent / Applicant identified a “knocking noise” in the engine and informed Respondent / Respondent replaced engine parts / Applicant claimed engine subsequently failed / Respondent sent boat to an authorised agent for specialised repairs / Applicant threatened legal action / Respondent offered to repair engine as per its right to remedy under the CGA / Applicant collected boat from Respondent before any repairs could be undertaken / Applicant claimed $30,000.00 in damages for the boat repairs and emotional harm / Held: Respondent complied with its obligations under the CGA / Applicant not entitled to compensation for failed repair as they uplifted the boat, making the repair impossible / Applicant failed to prove Respondent damaged boat / Applicant not entitled to compensation for stress and emotional harm of his own making / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) / Applicant booked accommodation with Respondent / Applicant was not satisfied with cleanliness of room / Following discussion with staff member, Applicant left and found alternative accommodation / Applicant claimed refund of $400 booking fee and $45 Tribunal filing fee / Held: Respondent breached CGA / Applicant's photo evidence showed cleanliness of room fell below standard a reasonable consumer would expect from an accommodation provider / FTA breach not considered / Respondent failed to remedy problem within reasonable time / Reasonable for Applicant to leave based on conversation with staff member / Applicant entitled to refund of booking fee but not filing fee / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $400 / Claim allowed.

Consumer Law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant contracted Respondent to repair blown head cylinder / Respondent provided quote for $3,000.00 / Respondent repaired head cylinder and carried out further repairs / Respondent charged Applicant $8,668.99 for repairs / Applicant claimed for return of $4,999.00 paid for unauthorised repairs / Held: repairs not authorised / Terms of contract were to only repair head cylinder and Respondent carried out further repairs without gaining authorisation from Applicant / Consumer not liable to pay more than reasonable price for service, s 31 CGA / Respondent to pay Applicant $4,643.99, being total amount minus reasonable cost of repair / Claim allowed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant purchased vehicle from Respondent for $19,000.00, of which $1,500.00 plus $1,1000 for warranty was still owing / Vehicle was defective / Respondent took vehicle back for repair and offered Applicant a courtesy vehicle, which she declined as she would have to collect it from another city / Five months later Respondent supplied Applicant with replacement vehicle / Applicant claimed $5000.00 for lost income during period without vehicle, as she was unable to get to work, and balance of contract price waived / Held: Respondent seriously failed to meet obligations under the CGA within reasonable time / It was unreasonable for Applicant to choose not to work for five months rather than to collect courtesy vehicle / Applicant had duty to mitigate loss / Respondent ordered to pay applicant $2,400.00, being $5000.00 less the outstanding amounts due under contract / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased a second hand bus from Respondent / Applicant intended to convert bus into a house bus / Applicant encountered multiple defects and paid $7099.53 for repairs and $514 for camp ground expenses/ Applicant claimed for repayment of expenses / Held: Applicant did not purchase bus as consumer and not entitled to protection under the CGA / No warranties relating to quality or fitness for purpose implied in contract of sale / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Respondents engaged Applicant for tiling work / No prior quote was supplied to or sought by Respondents / Applicant invoiced Respondents $2,471.35 for work / Respondents disputed price, Applicant reduced invoice to $2,050.45, crediting for unused tiles / Respondents still disputed invoice, paid $1,150 which they believed was fair price / Applicant claimed $900.45 for balance of outstanding invoice / Held: Applicant’s charge was reasonable, in line with requirements of CGA / Respondents ordered to pay Applicant $900.45 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Misrepresentation / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant bought vehicle from Respondent / Vehicle had various faults / Applicant claimed $4,740.37 / Held: Applicant cannot rely on CGA to seek remedy against Respondent / Misrepresentation not made by First Respondent that induced Applicant to enter into contract / No contract between Applicant and Second Respondent / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Respondent undertook gas fitting and plumbing work at Applicant's premises / Applicant alleged work done by Respondent not done with reasonable care and skill and resulting in products not fit for purpose / Applicant alleged Respondent breached terms of contract causing its loss / Applicant claimed $1,999 / Held: Applicant not a consumer under the CGA / CGA does not apply / Applicant failed to prove it is more likely than not that the Respondent failed to provide services in a reasonable and tradesperson-like manner / Lack of evidence from Applicant / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent to supply and fit shade cloth / Earlier Tribunal decision ordered Applicant to pay Respondent unpaid invoice / Decision also found shade cloth not of acceptable quality / Respondent agreed to remediate shade cloth at own expense once it received payment / Applicant did not make payment by ordered date, eventually did so after Respondent engaged debt collector / Respondent did not remediate shade cloth / Applicant claimed $2000 / Held: Applicant’s failure to pay on time did not nullify Respondent’s obligations under CGA / Not equitable for Respondent to retain all monies paid to it / Applicant ordered to return shade cloth to Respondent, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2000 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Consumer Law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Respondents engaged Applicant’s architectural services / Applicant worked on project for around 15 months before Respondents cancelled contract / Applicant claimed $17,934.54 for unpaid invoices / Respondents counter-claimed $24,263.71 refund of invoices paid / Held: agreement was that Applicant would charge no more than $28,750 plus 20% for core services, additional services to be charged at hourly rate with approval / Applicant breached contract by not completing agreed work within agreed price / Applicant also breached CGA by not providing services with reasonable care and skill / Applicant did not deliberately underquote, was not in breach of FTA / Applicant’s work still of some value to Respondents, Respondents not entitled to full refund / Applicant ordered to pay Respondents $5,863.31 / Claim dismissed, counterclaim allowed in part.  

Consumers Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant parked his car in Respondent’s yard / Car was moved to different boarded by tall pine trees / Natural disaster occurred causing a tree to fall on the windscreen of Applicant’s car / Signs at yard stated owners of vehicles would park at their own risk of damage and theft / Applicant states Respondent is liable for its damage / Applicant claimed damages of $3,731.23 / Held: Respondent provided services with reasonable care and skill / Signs indicated that cars parked in yard were at owner’s risk / Extreme weather event caused damage of car independent of human control / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant purchased CCTV cameras from Respondent via an online auction / Auction automatically sent Applicant's address which was incorrect / Applicant emailed correct address to Respondent before goods were shipped and Respondent replied / Respondent sent cameras to wrong address / Recipient refused to return cameras / Applicant sought refund of $629.95 and costs / Held: CGA provided a guarantee as to delivery / As Applicant updated his address before cameras were sent, liability for undelivered goods remained with seller / Respondent ordered to refund purchase price of $629.95 / Costs claim dismissed / Claim granted in part.

Contract / Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Caveat Emptor / Respondent purchased 7 lots at auction from Applicant / Lots 1 through 6 were purchased and delivered for $6,229.20 / Lot 7 yet to be paid / Respondent had lots 1-6 tested and found that they were fake / Respondent believes lot 7 probably fake / Respondent refuses to pay $1,638 for lot 7 and courier fees / Held: Caveat Emptor rule applies / Applicant not responsible for quality of goods unless misrepresented / No misrepresentation found under CGA and FTA / No reason for lot 7 to be presumed fake by Respondent / Respondent to pay applicant $1,638 for lot 7 / Applicant to deliver lot 7 items to Respondent / Respondent’s counterclaim dismissed / Applicant's claim allowed.