Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / guarantee as to reasonable care and skill / Applicants parked their car at Respondent’s car park at the airport while they were overseas / on return they were not picked up by Respondent’s free shuttle / Applicants made attempts to contact Respondent and visited its premises but was not able to gain access to their vehicle / Applicants claimed for the cost of taxi and accommodation / Held: Respondent’s service was not carried out with reasonable care and skill / shuttle transfer was an inherent part of the overall service / shuttle service was not available to Applicants and it was reasonable that they booked into hotel after their attempts / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $305.53.
You can search by selecting a jurisdiction, a keyword (for example a name) or browse by year. Identifying details have been removed.
Some decisions in this section have had minor editorial changes applied, that have no effect on the outcome.
55 items matching your search terms
-
ACX and ACY v ZXC Ltd [2013] NZDT 208 (11 July 2013) [PDF, 76 KB] -
ADT & CR Insurance Ltd v ZWH [2013] NZDT 221 (9 May 2013) [PDF, 63 KB] Tort / Negligence / Respondent drove through give way sign / Respondent claims his brakes failed and that the Applicant was driving too fast / held that Respondent was negligent because he failed to give way / no evidence brakes failed / held that Applicant was not speeding and no contributory negligence on their part / repair costs and towing costs claimed deemed reasonable / Respondent to pay $4084.71 to the Applicant’s insurer for the costs of repairs and towing the car.
-
AGB and AGC v ZVU [2013] NZDT 398 (1 May 2013) [PDF, 82 KB] Negligence / standard of care / Applicant was driving in strong winds behind the Respondent / material flew out from the Respondent’s trailer and damaged Applicant’s car / issue of whether Respondent took reasonable care to ensure that his trailer load was secure / Respondent argued that damage was caused due to an extraordinary act of nature / Held: Respondent does not have a defence that the cause of damage was due to an extraordinary act of nature / Respondent was aware of the weather conditions and should have secured his trailer load accordingly / Respondent to pay $736.58 to the Applicants, being the costs of repair.
-
AAE v ZZV [2012] NZDT 32 (18 May 2012) [PDF, 66 KB] Tort / Towing of vehicle / Applicant parked at a plaza and had dinner there / parking only for customers / remained parked after the plaza closed / returned to car and it had been towed by the Respondent (a towing company) / no signage at entrance and no sign in front or behind the row of parking spaces in which the Applicant parked / Applicant seeks refund of release fee / law of trespass to goods / clamping a person’s car is an act of trespass to that person’s property unless it can be shown that the owner has consent to, or willingly assumed, the risk of the car being clamped / same logic applies to towing / distress damage feasant only applies where a person or object trespasses on to land and causes damage / held that the Respondent committed a trespass against goods when it towed the Applicant / notices were insufficient for purposes of warning the Applicant he may be towed / Respondent not entitled to rely on distress damage feasant as there was no damage / Respondent ordered to…
-
ADI v ZWR Ltd [2011] NZDT 168 (8 April 2011) [PDF, 77 KB] Contract / Applicant’s children parked his vehicle at Respondent’s car park and paid for parking until 8.00am the following morning/ returned to car later in the evening to find car park closed / unable to recover the vehicle until the following morning / returning the following morning, Applicant found that Respondent had given him a ticket for parking beyond the period that had been paid for / A argued that it was unreasonable for R to issue a Parking Breach Notice as he was prevented from recovering his vehicle as the car park had closed / Held: that signs displaying the car park closing time and the terms and conditions displayed adjacent to the ticket machine are incorporated into the parking contract between the parties / Applicant’s claim is dismissed / Applicant ordered to pay Respondent $93.33 pursuant to s 11(2)(b), Disputes Tribunal Act 1988.