Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant purchased gaming massage chair from Respondent for $1,180 / Within six  months chair failed which Respondent repaired / A year later chair failed again / Respondent claimed warranty expired and refused to remedy unless Applicant paid labour or parts costs / Applicant refused / Once claim lodged in Tribunal Respondent offered repair or replacement / Applicant rejected that and claimed $1,980 equivalent to cost of purchasing comparable chair / Held: chair covered by warranty under CGA / Reasonable consumer would expect the chair to be operational two years later / Applicant offered Respondent reasonable opportunity to remedy and Respondent’s refusal precluded them from subsequent reliance on that right / Applicant entitled to full refund of purchase price but not entitled to cost of replacing chair / Respondent ordered to pay $1,180 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Applicant purchased an oven from the Respondent for $1,259.96 / Stove was delivered outside of the gate of the Applicant’s property / Delivery was confirmed by a photo and a tenant who noticed the oven as she was leaving the property to go to work / Tenant notified the Applicant that the oven had been delivered, as it was too heavy for her to bring inside / When the Applicant arrived at the property, the stove had been stolen / Applicant alleged breach of contract and sought reimbursement of the total cost paid / Held: Respondent’s tracking system notified the Applicant of the delivery / Stove was not delivered to the Applicant’s doorstep nor was it ascertained if anyone was present at the property to authorise delivery / Breach of terms of conditions relating to delivery / Less likely that theft would have occurred had the contract term not been breached / Respondent ordered to pay $1,259.96 to the Applicant / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant agreed Respondent could tow his vehicle following accident / Applicant could not afford storage fees and Respondent subsequently sold vehicle / Applicant claimed refund of fees paid $1,217, non-liability for rest of fees $2,946.50 and $7,000 for loss of vehicle / Held: Applicant not entitled to refund of $1,217 or loss of vehicle as he authorised the tow, did not remove vehicle and failed to inquire fees / Respondent failed to provide terms and conditions of storage, breached duty of care not contacting Applicant earlier to mitigate costs, did not fully inform him impending sale of vehicle / Applicant ordered to pay Respondent partial amount $1,670 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract law / Applicant contracted by Respondent as courier driver / Applicant claimed contract was terminated without proper consideration / Applicant claimed $28,373 / Held: Applicant’s unauthorised usage of forklift and inadequate performance entitled Respondent to terminate agreement / Claim dismissed.

Insurance / Applicant was booked to travel with one airline / Airline cancelled the flight / Applicant was forced to book travel with an alternative airline for an increased cost of $4,913.82 /  Applicant contacted Respondent, the Applicant’s insurer / Respondent initially accepted liability under the insurance contract / Later the Respondent denied liability on the basis that the insurance policy excluded cover for any loss arising from an actual or likely pandemic / Applicant was advised by original airline that his flight was cancelled due to insufficient sales / However, it appeared that the airline advised the Respondent that it cancelled the flight due to pandemic restrictions /  Applicant sought payment of $4,913.82  under travel insurance contract with the Respondent / Held: Applicant provided evidence there were no pandemic restrictions in place in either the city of departure or arrival at the relevant time / Applicant was advised the flight was cancelled due to airline requi…

Contract / Applicant engaged Respondent to move boxes and furniture for $5,500 / Boxes were heavier than expected and Applicant unaware of weight limit / Applicant engaged another moving company / Applicant claimed $10,209 for time spent on sorting belongings and engaging another carrier, and compensation for inability to start business as intended / Held: Respondent has not proved there was more than 40 m3 of boxes and furniture / Applicant no obligation to comment on weight of boxes / Respondent has not proved Applicant agreed to pay extra / Respondent breached contract to deliver all of Applicant's belongings / Respondent liable to pay removal and storage costs / Applicant not entitled to receive compensation for lost income opportunity and costs of proceedings / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $3,801.70 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Jurisdiction / Applicant undertook consultancy work for Respondent / Applicant says Respondent failed to pay some of its invoices for work completed / Applicant claimed $21,612 / Held: Disputes Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claim / New Zealand is the jurisdiction with closest and most real connection to the contract / Proper law of contract is New Zealand / Applicant completed work / Respondent failed to pay and breached contract / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $21,612 / Claim allowed.

Negligence /Applicant claimed he was driving when the Respondent’s dog ran onto the road / Applicant claimed he was unable to avoid hitting the dog as it appeared suddenly in front of him / Respondent admitted owing and being in control of the dog at the time / Respondent denied she was negligent as the dog was only off his lead momentary / Respondent claimed she was about to put the dog on the leash when he went onto the road / Respondent claimed the collision occurred as the Applicant was not keeping a proper lookout/ Applicant claimed costs of repair was $5,430.19 / Held: evidence indicated that the Respondent was liable for the damage caused by her dog while it was temporarily outside of her control / However, there was contributory negligence on the part of the Applicant / Incident occurred on a busy road and the Applicant had an obligation to be able to stop if an obstruction appeared on the road / Contribution of 50 percent was allowed / Damage was consistent with description of…

Contract / Employment / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Employment / Applicant sourced labour and visas for workers subcontracted to Respondents / Respondent would pay an agreed rate to Applicant per worker per hour / Applicant would then pay the workers' wages and other entitlements / Applicant claimed that Respondent hired Applicant's former employee which is a breach of restraint provisions in the contract / Held: Respondent breached contract by hiring Applicant's former employee / Contract clause beyond considered reasonable and therefore not enforceable / In the interests of justice to rewrite the restraint provisions / Respondent knew worker had been employed by Applicant and should considered their contractual obligations / Applicant entitled to remedy / Applicant claimed $26,790.40 damages for breach of contract / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4,320 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant signed agreement to purchase vehicle from Respondent and paid $5,000 deposit / Applicant did not pay balance owing / Respondent cancelled sale but retained deposit / Applicant claimed $5,000 deposit and $250 costs / Held: contract was unconditional / Deposit confirmed as security for performance of obligation to pay due balance / Agreement silent on when balance was due / Timeframe for payment implied as not to be immediate but not unduly extended, "as soon as reasonably practicable" / Respondent not entitled to cancel for non-payment / Vehicle was not ready for delivery at the time / Just for deposit to be returned to Applicant / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $5,000 / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants purchased leather couches from Respondent / Applicant also purchased extended warranty covering damages to leather / Applicant discovered a tear in the leather that was not visible at time of delivery or when it was moved to the Applicant's new home / Applicant claimed for the couch to be replaced or to be refunded $2,999 / Held: couch was not of acceptable quality as it was already damaged when delivered / Failure was of substantial character as the rip was large and noticeable / Signing delivery was not an acceptance that goods were of acceptable quality / Respondent ordered to pick up damaged couch and deliver a new one or refund amount paid / Claim allowed.

Contract / Tort / Conversion / Parties bought 4 cows and a bull / Parties intended to co-own bull but Respondent primarily looked after it / Parties agreed one cow to be delivered to First Applicant but Respondent did not deliver cow /  Applicant texted Respondent to offer resolving dispute by Respondent paying Applicant $150 / Three years later Respondent paid $150 to Applicant / Second Applicant had cow which Respondent sold to freezing works / Applicant claims $6150 for value of cow Respondent didn't deliver / Second Applicant claims $942.08 for cow Respondent sold to freezing works / Respondent counterclaims against Applicant $5598.10 / Held: Parties had agreed each would own two cows with cow in dispute owned by Applicant / Respondent took steps to prevent Applicant from collecting cow amounting to conversion irrespective of whether cow is still alive / Applicant entitled to $1000 compensation for cow and $1250 for its calves /  Respondent refused Applicant access to bull in breac…

Negligence / Applicant and Respondent were involved in car accident / Applicant drove straight through intersection / Respondent turned right from side street with give way sign and collided with Applicant / Respondent claimed intersection was blocked and Applicant was speeding / Applicant claimed $3482.55 for damage caused / Held: Respondent failed to give way and entered intersection without ensuring turn could be completed safely / Tribunal found Respondent’s maneuver unreasonable given vehicle size and traffic conditions / Tribunal rejected Respondent’s claims that Applicant was speeding or should have stopped due to insufficient evidence and conflicting accounts / No proof Applicant’s driving contributed to collision / Respondent and insurer ordered to pay Applicant and insurer $3482.55 / Claim allowed.