Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Quasi-contract / Parties were previously in an relationship /  Respondent used Applicant’s online account to purchase a phone plus insurance without her permission / Applicant claimed the total charge of $1,714.95 plus her filing fee from the Respondent / Applicant undertaken to pay the balance of the money owing to the phone provider once payment for phone is made / Whether the Respondent used the Applicant’s account to purchase the phone / Whether the Respondent was legally obliged to reimburse the Applicant / Held: evidence suggested that Respondent accessed the Applicant’s account to purchase a phone together with insurance / Respondent said phone provider had compelled her to make payments for the phone / Unconscionable for the Respondent to retain this benefit without payment / Respondent obliged under law of quasi-contract to reimburse the Applicant for the full amount of the charges to her account / Applicant cannot recover Tribunal filing fee in this instance / Resp…

Contract / Applicant entered contract to purchase puppy from Respondent / Parties agreed Applicant could be refunded if puppy did not meet preferences / After puppies born Applicant advised none met preferences and asked for refund of deposit / Respondent refused refund / Applicant claims refund of deposit plus costs / Held: contract allowed Applicant to back out of purchase and receive refund if not happy with puppy on offer for personal reasons as long as done in good faith / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay $585.00 to Applicant / Applicant cannot recover costs or Tribunal filing fee per s 43 of the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988.

Trespass to goods / Applicant visited Embassy and parked in neighbouring property’s exclusive parking space / Respondent clamped Applicant’s car / Applicant claims refund of $150 release fee and $45 filing fee / Respondent does not dispute it clamped Applicant’s car so trespass of goods established / Issue whether clear warning car could be clamped if parked in space in question / Held: signs did not provide sufficient warning whether visitors to Embassy could park there / Held: Respondent unable to establish defence to action / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to refund Applicant fee for clamping car  / Filing fee cannot be recovered by Applicant per s 43 of the Disputes Tribunals Act 1988

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased battery for electric golf trundler from Respondent / Applicant wanted a deep cycle battery / Wrong information provided and it was not a deep cycle battery / Battery started to fail / Applicant claims for $265.00, representing a refund of battery together with $45.00 filing fee / Held: battery not durable and fit for purpose, and did not correspond with its description / Applicant has not lost the right to reject the battery / Battery was lost and owned by Respondent at this time, Respondent compensated $10.00 for loss of battery / Claim allowed, Respondent to pay Applicant $210.00

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

Contracts Enforcement Act 1956 / Applicant a debt collection agency  which claimed Respondent signed a personal guarantee for debts owing to one of its companies / Applicant’s company in liquidation so debt assigned to Applicant / whether guarantee enforceable & if not, whether Tribunal can & should rectify it / Held: customer update form signed by Respondent unenforceable as it did not identify principal debtor, or only identified one that was no longer in existence / Tribunal has jurisdiction to rectify defective guarantee but Tribunal should not exercise discretion due to significant delay in filing claim / other factors preventing exercise of discretion included Applicant’s acceptance of assignment & failure to bring evidence of it & carelessness of using defective form / Tribunal declined to make order that guarantee be rectified / claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant was contracted to provide plumbing services to Respondent’s bathroom on behalf of Respondent’s insurance company / Respondent decided to alter vanity area which was beyond the scope of remedial work being completed / Applicant claimed $2,376.07 for work completed / Held: Respondent liable to pay the amounts claimed / insufficient evidence to establish amount claimed for the work was not reasonable / collection, service and filing fee costs can be claimed only where they are allowed for in contract / Applicant’s claim that Respondent signed job authorisation form not made out / Respondent’s position caused considerable delay in payment / appropriate for 27 months’ interest at 5% per annum to be awarded / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,727.98.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a hover mower from Respondent / mower ran unevenly and was difficult to start so Applicant returned it for repairs / after receiving it back it ran no better and was returned again / 6-8 weeks later when Respondent attempted to return the mower Applicant rejected it and requested a full refund / Applicant claimed for repairs to their old mower, purchase price of the hover mower and the filing fee / Held: mower is not of acceptable quality / ongoing problems with starting and running that are intermittent / supported by evidence from a lawnmower shop owner who inspected the mower / issues and length of time they occurred mean the failures are of a substantial character / Applicant entitled to reject the mower under the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 and entitled to full refund but not repair costs (of old mower) or filing fee / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $988.

Contract / Applicant submitted a quote to Respondent to lay 50 m² of timber / quote accepted / area was in fact 90 m² / Applicant advised Respondent’s project manager that the job would require additional labour and materials / advised to proceed and that the matter would be sorted out later / Applicant decided to not charge for additional glue as goodwill gesture / Applicant submitted invoices / accounts not paid / Applicant decided to charge for glue / claim for cost of glue, $1,265.00, and filing fee / held that it was Respondent’s mistake in thinking the area was only 50 m² and needed to make it clear to Applicant that it would not pay for additional labour and materials / failed to inform Applicant before he started work / Applicant went ahead with work with reasonable belief he would be paid / Applicant entitled to charge for additional glue as the goodwill gesture was contingent on prompt payment of accounts / Applicant entitled to charge for glue / Respondent to pay $1,265.00 t…

Jurisdiction / quasi-contract / Respondent a former employee of Applicant / Applicant overpaid Respondent $380.98 in his final pay / Respondent claims he can retain the overpayment pursuant to the Wages Protection Act 1983 / Applicant claims $380.98 plus filing fee from the Respondent / issue as to jurisdiction / Tribunal has jurisdiction under quasi-contract to hear claim / Employment Relations Authority does not have exclusive jurisdiction to determine matters of overpayment to an employee after employment terminated / claim not founded in contract and Respondent has not breached a contract / quasi-contract / person liable to make restitution when unduly enriched / Respondent received money he was not entitled to through Applicant’s error / no legal reason justifying non-repayment / WPA does not apply as Applicant not seeking to deduct overpayment from future wages / Respondent not entitled to the money and has been unduly enriched by Applicant’s error / unjust for Respondent to reta…

Negligence / Dog Control Act 1996 (DCA) / Respondent’s dog came into Applicant’s yard and was seen with Applicant’s dog / Applicant concerned his dog might have mated with Respondent’s dog / On vet’s advice gave abortion drugs to his dog / Applicant claimed vet costs, interests and filing fee / Held: under DCA Respondent responsible for damages caused by her dog / Reasonable for Applicant to administer drugs before he knew whether dog was pregnant or not / Fault partially attributed to Respondent as negligent in allowing dog to wander and partially with Applicant as did not take reasonable precaution to ensure male dogs could not get to his dog / Respondent liable for half of vet fees, not liable for interest or filing fee / Claim allowed in part.