Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased candles online from Respondent / Applicant stated candles were smudged and flattened near the bottom and not of the quality she expected / Applicant sought to return the candles and receive compensation of $127.00 / Respondent stood by the quality of the candles saying they were produced in beeswax and were formed within a mold / Respondent said she offered to exchange the candles but the offer was not accepted / Held: candles were of acceptable quality and fit for purpose / Clear to any buyer that that the candles were not hand-carved / No breach of guarantee / No right to refund / Claim dismissed.

Property /  Contract / Applicants purchased home from Respondents / Discovered hole in floor of garage after signing agreement prior to settlement / Applicants reserved their right to bring claim after settlement / Real estate agent joined claim as Fourth Respondent to determine the responsible party for misrepresentation regarding the garage’s condition / Applicant also sought costs for installation of rangehood due to its inclusion in list of chattels under the contract / Applicants claimed $2,127.50 for rangehood supply and installation and $6842.50 for garage repair /  Held: First, Second and Third Respondents were liable  for misrepresentation of the garages condition / Requirement to disclose faults rested with them as vendors / Rangehood did not exist at time of agreement and was not intended to be included by parties /  Respondents breached agreement by preventing Applicants from undertaking a pre-settlement inspection but no further loss resulted from that breach  / First, Sec…

Consumer law / Misrepresentation / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicant purchased a truck that recently received Certificate of Fitness (CoF) issued by Respondent / After transporting truck home, Applicant discovered rust in body of truck / Vehicle Condition Assessment confirmed the rust / Applicant made complaint to NZTA and CoF was revoked / Applicant alleged misrepresentation and claimed $9,190 / Held: Respondent’s issuing of CoF amounted to false or misleading representation / Rust on truck’s body would have been present at time of inspection and should have been identified by Respondent / Applicant entitled to reasonable cost of repairs / Applicant not entitled to additional costs as not closely connected to Respondent’s actions and partially attributed to Applicant’s action not to view truck before auction / Respondent to pay Applicant $7,797 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant entered Distribution Agreement with Respondent granting rights to distribute food and dairy products / Applicant experienced loss of leased refrigerated truck a month later and emailed intention to terminate agreement / Respondent invoked clause requiring $5000 plus GST for cancellation without three months written notice and withheld commission from Applicant / Applicant claimed payment of February commission $4459.89 plus GST / Held: clause was an enforceable penalty clause / Penalty amount was not out of proportion and was reasonable pre-estimate of loss given increased costs to perform distribution during 3 month notice period / No frustration of contract through force majeure / Loss of leased truck was foreseeable and performance was not impossible / Also,   later personal events occurred after cancellation / Claim dismissed.

Building / Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant signed a sale and purchase agreement conditional on building report / Applicant requested Respondent to conduct a building inspection and write report / Applicants purchased property / Applicant replaced roof and framing / Applicant contracted second building inspector / Applicant laid complaint against Respondent / Applicants claimed $30,000 for repairs / Held: Respondent’s inspection was conducted with reasonable skill and care / Respondent’s report was reasonably fit for purpose / Respondent did not make a false or misleading representation / Claim dismissed. 

Property / Residential Tenancies Act 1986 / Applicant engaged Respondent to manage rental property / Respondent added tenant in August 2022 without completing promised checks / Tenant later evicted December 2023 for rent arrears property damaged and meth contamination found / Applicant claimed costs for meth decontamination report and legal expenses / Held: Respondent breached agency agreement by failing to conduct checks / Liability excluded under agreement clause for damage caused by tenant / Insufficient evidence meth contamination occurred during tenant’s occupancy / Legal costs not recoverable / Claim dismissed.

Contract /  Applicant contacted Respondent to conduct a custom food control plan audit / Applicant disputes the price charged / Applicant seeks refund of $2,256.50 / Respondent claims unpaid balance of $2,256.50 / Held: for contract to be enforceable there must be agreed terms / Parties agreed on an hourly rate of $220 / Respondent could charge for additional time / Applicant breached contract by failing to pay for work performed / Applicant’s conduct was unconsciousable / Applicant to pay Respondent $2003.50. 

Contract / Property / Limitation Act 2010 / Applicant purchased land from Respondent to provide access to property / Agreement was for Applicant to grant easement over land to allow Respondent continued access to their land / Respondent failed to sign required documents and no new certificate of title was issued or easement registered / Respondent later sold to third party who informed Applicant they did not have legal right to access their property / Applicant required to reach further agreement with new owners to grant an easement / Applicants claimed they did not have knowledge of Respondent’s failure until informed by the third party / Applicants claimed $30,000 from Respondents being price to obtain an easement and gain right to access their property / Held: claim was time barred / Regardless of claimed late knowledge Applicant ought to have known of the issue within the required 6 year period / Applicants unable to show existence of late knowledge date / Claim dismissed. 

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant enrolled  in Respondent’s PhD programme  / Applicant paid fees of $8,013.14 / Enrolment contract outlined Respondent’s obligations included pastoral care / Due to personal circumstances Applicant did not complete a required paper to necessary standard in allowed timeframe / Respondents cancelled Applicants enrolment on unsatisfactory progress grounds / Applicant claimed Respondent breached contract and sought an array of remedies / Held: Respondent did not provide pastoral care with reasonable care and skill and therefore breached contract / Respondent ordered to refund Applicant’s $8, 013.14 tuition fees / Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to order an apology, recognition of doctoral studies enrolment or compensation for hurt and humiliation, nor to reinstate enrolment or EFTS / Claim allowed in part. 

Contract / First Respondent, property manager, entered contract with Applicant for supply and installation of garage doors in their capacity as agent for the property owner, Second Respondent / Garage door was replacement for door damaged by tenant / Applicant quoted two options for First Respondent to choose from based on images provided noting they could not identify the exact door / Garage doors selected by First Respondent were installed / Second Respondent refused to pay Applicant as they wanted a product that was "like for like" with previous door /  Applicant sought payment for doors / Held: First Respondent had full authority of Second Respondent to enter contract on their behalf / First Respondent was not misled into accepting quote / Applicant provided quoted product / Second Respondent therefore liable for contract / Second Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4,229.55 / Claim allowed. 

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Respondent contracted Applicant to move furniture / They requested Applicant to bubble wrap TV but it arrived damaged / Respondent refused to pay and claimed Respondent failed to take reasonable skill and care / Applicant claimed TV was wrapped with blanket during transit but unwrapped when it was taken out of truck / Applicant sought $1,164.95 in unpaid fees / Held: agreement was at owner’s risk / Applicant not liable for damages unless it was intentionally caused / Applicant did not intentionally damage Respondent’s TV / Likely that damage occurred in transit / Damage was not intentional so Applicant absolved of liability / Respondent ordered to pay $1,164.95 / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant hired campervan from Respondent / First two vans supplied had defects but were promptly replaced by Respondent each time issues arose / Applicant used third van for about ten days without further issues although he believed wheel alignment was slightly off / Applicant sought $1,400, refund of campervan hire and phone costs / Held: although first two vans were not fit for purpose, Respondent remedied issue within reasonable timeframe by providing prompt replacements / Third van found fit for purpose / Wheel alignment issue diagnosed by mechanic as minor and vehicle was totally safe and driveable  / Applicant had already received partial refund for hire costs, further refund not available / Phone costs not recoverable because cheaper and free communication options had been available / Claim dismissed.

Aviation law / Civil Aviation Act 1990 / Montreal Convention / Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) / Applicant bought international airline tickets and checked in for flight operated by Respondent / Flight was delayed due to required maintenance causing missed connection and additional waiting time / Applicant incurred meal, transport and accommodation costs / Only some costs were covered by insurance / Applicant claimed compensation for delay losses including expenses and loss of opportunity / Held: Montreal Convention applied to international carriage and Respondent responsible for delay as within airline control / Respondent did not breach FTA and Applicant proved limited damages only / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $300 / Claim accepted in part.