Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Bailment / Applicant loaned First Respondent his car while overseas / Both the Applicant and First Respondent were on learner licenses / Second Respondent, First Respondent’s father, disabled the car out of concern that First Respondent was driving illegally / Applicant instructed First Respondent to return the car / After returning from overseas, Applicant discovered damage to the car and sought $11,098.75 from the Respondents’ for repairs and loss of wages / Held: front bumper and radiator support were damaged while the car was in First Respondent’s care / First Respondent must pay Applicant $2,120.25 for repairs and $400, agreed price for loan of the car / Applicant’s claim for loss of wages denied as he could have found an alternative way to get to work / Second Respondent not liable for any of the damage / Claim allowed in part.

Bailment / Negligence / Applicant decided to sell his motorbike / Respondents offered to sell bike on Applicant’s behalf / Respondents sold bike to person living in a caravan at their house / Buyer purchased bike for $13,400.00 and paid $1,400 into Applicant’s account / Applicant told Respondents on no account was buyer to take possession of bike before full payment was made / Some months later, Applicant had still not received the $12,000.00 / Respondents told him buyer had taken the bike / Applicant claimed price he originally paid for bike together with other losses / Held: Respondents entered into bailment relationship with Applicant when they took his bike on agreement they would sell it for him / Respondents were negligent in their duty as bailee by failing to keep possession of bike until payment received in full / Applicant incurred loss of $12,000 unpaid balance / Respondents ordered to pay $12,000 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant sought recovery of two engines he said had been lost by Respondents / Applicant said truck was in possession of Respondent / Applicant instructed that the truck and two engines were to be delivered to another city / Truck delivered without engines / Held: a bailment relationship arose for storage of truck and contents but no formal contract agreed / Respondent not obliged to compensate Applicant regarding loss of engine 1 / No breach of duty in relation to engine 2 / Insufficient evidence to prove claim that loss was result of failures by Respondents / Respondents not liable to compensate Applicant / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Insurance / Bailment / Carriage / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 / Applicant engaged Respondent’s moving and storage services / Following tornado at storage facility, Respondent advised Applicant her goods looked fine / Storage container found to have split, allowing moisture to enter, significantly damaging Applicant’s goods / Applicant claimed $27,732.59 for losses / Held: Respondent liable through both bailment and Consumer Guarantees Act for failure to protect Applicant’s goods / Damage occurred due to Respondent’s incorrect conclusion about container’s weathertightness / Applicant’s loss assessed as $16,808.50 / Applicant liable for $2,380.00 outstanding invoice / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $14,428.50 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Bailment / Applicant hired First Respondent to perform certification on his vehicle / First Respondent discovered minor defects requiring remediation / First Respondent delivered vehicle to Second Respondent's workshop for repair / Second Respondent unable to start work immediately / Second Respondent left vehicle in customer parking area / Vehicle was stolen and not recovered / Applicant claimed $30,000 / Held: neither Respondent breached any legal duty owed to Applicant / Claim dismissed.

Bailment / Applicant’s dealership arranged for Respondent to repair car / Applicant failed to collect car when advised / When Applicant picked up the car it was damaged / Applicant claims $400 equitable to the insurance excess of fixing the damage / Held: Respondent took reasonable care of informing the Applicant the car was ready for collection / Claim dismissed.

Contract / bailment / Respondent agreed to sell the Applicant’s militaria collection and was to take 20 per cent commission on sales / Respondent had sold only two groups of items when the Respondent’s van was burgled / Applicant claimed for value of lost items, and parties agreed to extend the Tribunal’s monetary jurisdiction to hear the matter / Held: As bailee, the Respondent owed Applicant a duty of care to look after the goods, and has the onus of establishing that he did look after them / Respondent failed to establish he took due care with the Applicant’s goods, and took unnecessary risks by transporting the goods to fairs rather than leaving them in storage / the fact the Applicant took nearly six years to file the claim made it hard for the Respondent to produce evidence to show it had taken due care, therefore loss was shared on the balance of the goods / Respondent to pay Applicant $14,436.00.