Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicants purchased a house from Respondent / Spa pool was part of purchase / When the Applicants attempted to use the spa it caused the electricity board to trip and cut power to the house / Spa pool drew more electricity than the house was supplied with / Applicant claimed $27,147.27 from Respondent, comprising of $449.22 to diagnose issue; $25,193.05 to install an additional electrical cable; $1,000.00 in legal fees; $325.00 physio costs and $180.00 for filing fee / Respondent denied liability on the basis that the spa worked when she lived at the property / Held: there was misrepresentation about the spa pool / Evidence accepted that electrical supply to the house was insufficient to run the spa /  Applicants induced into contract by misrepresentation / Spa was 15 years old so replacement value assessed to be $15,000 / Legal fees were reasonable / Applicants not awarded claimed $325.00 for physio costs for being…

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant contacted Respondent about buying her car / Parties negotiated price of $5,250.00 / Applicant observed unusual behaviour in the car ten days after purchase / Applicant got a mechanic’s report and contacted Respondent about issues identified / Respondent refused to refund Applicant or contribute to repair costs / Respondent had stated car had been “well looked after mechanically” / Applicant claimed $4,903.45 in damages, comprising $4,250.00 for loss in value, $287.50 for diagnosis, $57.95 for a fee to return parts purchased, $218.00 for other parts purchased, and $90.00 filing fee / Held: representation that car had been well looked after mechanically influenced Applicant’s decision to go ahead with the purchase without any pre-purchase inspection / Applicant was induced by the misrepresentation to enter into the contract / Applicant entitled to recover half cost of engine replacement and diagnosis, $2,022.70 / Claim allowed i…

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant paid $12,000.00 deposit to secure purchase of horse from Respondent / Horse remained with Respondent, apart from a period when it was leased to Applicant for a horse camp / When Respondent retrieved horse after camp, she claimed it was lame / Applicant decided not to proceed with purchase, requested refund / Applicant claimed $12,250.00 for purchase price and filing fee / Respondent counter-claimed $8,000.00 for reduced value of horse / Held: Applicant entitled to cancel contract and obtain full refund until final payment was made, according to agreement / Respondent failed to prove horse suffered laminitis caused during time she was under Applicant’s responsibility / Respondent breached agreement by failing to refund Applicant / Filing fee not recoverable / Respondent ordered to pay $12,000.00 / Claim allowed in part and counter-claim dismissed.

Contract / Interest / Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 (DTA) / Applicant engaged by Respondent as an independent contractor for data entry work / Applicant filed claim against Respondent for $360.84, unpaid sums of $45.40 and $20.44 plus interest, damages for time pursuing payment, and filing fee / Unpaid sums since been paid / Applicant now claimed $840.00 in compensation for late payment, including interest, time spent and filing fee / Held: no contractual provision for interest in circumstances / DTA provided for interest to be ordered at Tribunal’s discretion / DTA does not allow for interest where debt was paid before hearing / Circumstances not met for costs to be awarded / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 / Applicant purchased a phone from Respondent which came with a one year warranty / After 18 months Applicant started to experience problems with it / Applicant took phone to authorised repairer / Repairer declined to repair phone as it was defective / Applicant wanted Respondent to repair defective phone and pay filing fee / Held: phone no longer under warranty / Applicant entitled to remedy as phone was not of acceptable quality / Unable to award filing fee in the circumstances / Respondent liable for all repair costs / Claim granted in part.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a second-hand fridge from Respondent for $600 / Applicant paid $30.00 for delivery / Months later, Applicant contacted Respondent stating the fridge was no longer cooling food /  Respondent repaired fridge at Applicant’s address / Shortly afterwards Applicant contacted Respondent to advise the problem did not appear to be fixed / Respondent advised that Applicant would have to bring the fridge in to be fixed / Applicant sought a refund for the fridge of $600.00 and $30.00 for delivery and $45.00 for the Tribunal filing fee / Held: Respondent did not succeeded in remedying the fault within a reasonable time frame / Applicant can reject the goods and get a $600 refund / Respondent failed to succeeded in remedying the fault / Applicant not entitled to a reimbursement of fridge delivery fee, $30 / Delivery was separate from the purchase and no fault with service / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $600 / Applicant ordered to r…

Contract / Respondent approached Applicant about having a billboard placed at its premises / Applicant provided Respondent with estimated costs for gaining resource consent / Respondent replied saying “yes please proceed the application” / Applicant claimed $8,790.17, being three unpaid invoices plus Tribunal filing fee / Respondent accepted owing 50% of one invoice, but disputed all other charges / Held: it was a term of the contract that Respondent would pay 100% of the costs of the resource consent / More likely than not that Respondent was to pay for the traffic and urban reports required for the consent application / Applicant was not responsible for advising Respondent it would need its landlord’s consent / Applicant entitled to all invoiced costs, but unable to claim Tribunal fee / Respondent ordered to pay $8,610.17 / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Respondent ran sticker collecting promotion, where consumers could exchange specific number of stickers collected for free kitchenware / Respondent ran out of stock before Applicant was able to exchange his stickers / Applicant claimed $125 ($80 for stickers and $45 Tribunal filing fee) from Respondent, plus an unspecified value in punitive damages to be paid to charity / Held: Respondent did not engage in conduct that was misleading or deceptive or that was likely to mislead or deceive, or “bait” advertising / Reasonable quantities of the kitchenware were available, with stock only becoming low at end of promotion / Respondent’s messaging was clear that promotion was “while stocks last,” encouraging consumers to redeem stickers early / Claim dismissed.

Trespass / Applicant parked her car in a car park while visiting a bakery / Applicant later received a reminder letter from Respondent informing of an earlier parking breach notice for $95 and further $75 charge for non-payment / Respondent continued to charge administration/recovery fees of $75 every two weeks / At time of filing claim, Applicant had paid original $95 and had requests for payment from Respondent for $325 / Applicant sought order she was not liable for the $325 / Held: insufficient evidence that Applicant trespassed on private property / Respondent not entitled to charge Applicant for parking where she did / Applicant not liable for $325 fees / Respondent ordered to refund $95 paid by Applicant / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant booked rental car with First Respondent using Second Respondent’s website, paid $18.02 deposit / When collecting car, Applicant was advised by First Respondent of $150 surcharge due to Applicant’s age / Applicant refused to pay surcharge as it had not been advised at time of booking, sought refund of deposit / Refund initially refused, but later paid after claim filed / Applicant sought $90 for Tribunal filing fee and $2500 damages for stress and inconvenience / Held: Second Respondent misled Applicant as to price of rental car, breaching FTA / First Respondent was not responsible for content on website, so had not breached FTA / First Respondent failed to provide customer service with reasonable care and skill, breaching CGA / Immediate loss suffered by Applicant was $18.02, which had been refunded / No further compensation payable / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Respondent hit Applicant’s vehicle causing damage / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $834.00 / Applicant claimed officer failed to submit costs incurred in time for the court to consider / Applicant did not collect $834.00 / Applicant claimed $10,260.00 for written off vehicle, storage and towing costs, phone repair costs, compensation for days off work due to injury, courtesy car costs, child picking/dropping costs, and filing fee reimbursement / Held: Respondent breached duty of care / Respondent was negligent as he failed to stop short of Applicant’s vehicle and caused collision / Respondent liable for cost of reasonable losses suffered by Applicant / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $3,995.92 for vehicle written off, storage and towing charges / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant contracted Respondent to complete house renovations / Applicant claimed Respondent's contractor used the wrong product when painting the cladding, which caused the paint to flake off and look uneven / Applicant sought $25,874.45 in compensation (including the filing fee of $180.00) and $1,437.50 for the cost of a technical report / Held: Respondent more likely than not used the wrong product when painting the cladding / Applicant not entitled to recover $180 filing fee / Applicant entitled to remedial costs minus depreciation ($19,694.45) /  Applicant entitled to recover the cost of expert report as a foreseeable loss resulting from the breach / Respondent must pay Applicant $21,150.00 / Claim allowed.