Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant sold vehicle to Respondent / Respondent refused to complete purchase / Applicant claimed $17,640 comprising of purchase price, storage fees and interest / Held: there was a binding contract for sale and purchase of vehicle at agreed price of $15,500 / Insufficient evidence to find that the Applicant supplied vehicle in trade / Condition of warrant of fitness not fulfilled therefore Respondent entitled to decline purchase / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Property Law Act 2007 (‘PLA’) / Applicant was winning bidder at an auction / Applicant had bid $822,000 to buy Respondents' home / Respondents refused to sign sale and purchase agreement / Lawyers became involved / Applicant claimed $8,000 in breach of contract and $6,101.90 for damages / Held: Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear claim / Respondents breached contractual obligation by refusing to sign sale and purchase agreement /  In breach of contract innocent party must be put in same position as if contract had been performed / Applicant spent $6,101.90 on legal fees as result of contract not being signed / Respondent to pay Applicant $6,101.90 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Respondent requested quote from the Applicant for blinds / Applicants created a quote after measuring Respondent’s home / Total cost for blinds was $6965 / Terms and conditions in quote stated acceptance of quote required 50% deposit / Respondent accepted quote but did not pay 50% deposit / Applicant tried to contact Respondent after blinds made /  Respondent told Applicant that she could not pay for blinds / Respondent also stated she had not accepted terms of contract / Applicant claimed for payment of $7199 for blinds / Held: a contract was formed between the parties / Words used by Respondent support view that quote was accepted and contract therefore entered into / Respondent to pay Applicant $6965 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicant provided immigration services to the Respondent and its clients / Terms of the agreement were detailed in a contract / After the relationship ended the Applicant invoiced Respondent for services she had provided for Visa applications that were not approved / Applicant stated she had not invoiced these throughout the relationship / The reason given was as Respondent had refused to pay for the first declined VISA application and she did not want to jeopardise the relationship / Applicant claimed $9,092.50 for unpaid invoices / Whether the parties agreed that Applicant was to be paid for all Visa applications that she made or only those that were approved / Held: likely that the Applicant was not to be paid for all Visa applications that she made, only those that were approved / If a visa was not approved then a client will not arrive in New Zealand / The provision that Applicant would be paid a commission when a client arrives in New Zealand was therefore likely cond…

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1986 (CGA) / Fair Trading Act 1993 (FTA) / Applicant was customer of Respondent who provided gas bottle deliveries / Applicant believed they were overcharged for 31 deliveries and was not told signing a 12 month contract would reduce rate charged or about other discounts / Respondent terminated services to Applicant following Applicant making complaint / Applicant claimed $1318 as refund of overcharged amount / Held: unproven that services provided by Respondent to Applicant breached the CGA / Applicant engaged Respondent on ongoing basis meaning either party could terminate arrangement / Respondent's terms and condition allow changes in pricing with notification to customers which Applicant had received / Reasonable service and price obligations on Respondent did not require standardised pricing nor informing customers of promotions / Customer's responsibility to seek information on the best deal for services / No breach of FTA for same reasons /…

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Contracts and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Respondents engaged Applicants to design holiday home for $25,000 plus GST / Applicant delivered sketch design in three stages which Respondents were dissatisfied with and refused to pay / Applicant claimed $28,959.25 for unpaid fees and legal costs / Held: Respondents jointly and severally liable to pay $33,977.31 / Contractual fee due was $25,000 plus GST / Applicant completed work with reasonable care and skill and no misrepresentation or repudiation occurred / No issue with designs Applicant prepared beyond differing from client’s expectations but Respondents did not allow Applicant opportunity to revise design / Interest awarded of $39,77.31 / Limited legal costs awarded due to Tribunal jurisdiction cap / Respondents ordered to pay $33,977.31 / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) / Applicant booked flights with Respondent but accidentally booked opposite direction of intended travel / Applicant asked Respondent for refund or flight change / Respondent said fare type did not allow refund or free changes but Applicant could pay $1604 to change flights / Part of amount charged included $320 contact handling centre fee / Applicant claimed refund of $1064 additional flight change fees /  Held: Applicant made mistake but should have taken reasonable care to book flights in right direction / No remedy under CGA when consumer mistakenly purchases good or service / Not unfair under s 26A FTA for airline to impose charges for flexibility of fare types or flight changes / Respondent accepted they should not have imposed contact centre handling fee / Respondent to refund $320 contact centre handling fee to Applicant / Claim accepted in part.

Contract law / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA) / Applicants purchased racehorse from Respondent for $22,500, intending to use the horse for equestrian events / Shortly after purchase, horse exhibited behavioural issues / Veterinary investigations shows horse had congenital condition known as Kissing Spine / Applicants claimed refund of $22,500 plus $4,890.13 in associated costs / Held: Respondent made an innocent misrepresentation by stating the horse was suitable for eventing, which induced Applicants into contract / Horse not suitable for eventing / Although respondent unaware of the congenital condition, the misrepresentation entitled the Applicants to compensation / Under CCLA the Applicants could not cancel the contract but were entitled to compensation for their losses / Respondent ordered to pay Applicants $27,390 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicants contracted Respondent to photograph their wedding / Contract provided for album, online gallery, video highlight, physical prints / Applicants received online gallery containing duplicate photos from only part of wedding / Applicants did not receive video or other physical items in contract / Applicants claimed $3800 as refund / Held: Respondent breached contract by failing to provide agreed albums, prints, video highlight and other items outlined in contract / Respondent also breached term relating to online gallery as photos did not accurately represent entirety of day / Applicants entitled to be put back into position they would have been in if contract was performed / Respondent to provide Applicants all unedited photos and video footage and pay $1500 refund / Claim allowed.  

Contract law / Property / Respondent signed commission agreement appointing Applicant as sole agent to sell business / Applicant introduced Respondent to potential buyer who decided to not proceed with sale / Respondent cancelled listing of business months later / Respondent’s business sold four years later to company formed by the earlier potential buyer / Applicant claimed $30,000 commission from Respondent / Held: Respondent not liable to pay commission to Applicant as Applicant’s introduction was not effective cause of Respondent’s business sale / Purchaser not introduced by agent during agreement period and sale occurred over three years after agreement ended / Contact between agent and buyer after introduction was general and not causative of sale / Sale initiated independently by conversation between Applicant and employee of buyer’s company / Claim dismissed.  

Consumer law / Acceptable quality / Consumer Guarantees Act 1986 / Applicant purchased  mattress online for $549 plus $109 delivery / Applicant claimed $658 refund as mattress sagged on both sides after 3 months causing back pain and provided photos showing sagging / Respondent argued sagging due to expected foam compression, and said there was no defect as mattress low-priced, firmness subjective / Held: mattress not proven defective or below acceptable quality / Applicant’s photos unconvincing and price paid relevant to expectation of good’s performance / Applicant did not disclose mattress’ specific purpose or back condition to Respondent / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Second Respondent delivered Applicant’s vehicle to have it checked / Respondent found fault and fixed it / Respondent stated repair cost was $2,950 / Applicant disputed cost / Respondent refused to release vehicle until cost was paid / Respondent claims $9,165.60 representing repair costs and storage fees of $29.00 a day / Held: Owner entitled to pay repair invoice / Storage costs were not a contractual term agreed by parties / Claim partially allowed / Applicant to pay Respondent $2,662.35. 

Contract / Consumers Guarantee Act 1993 “CGA” / Applicant hired Respondent to install steel roof, repair tiles on roof, supply and install new mains power supply, and the installation and ducting of new rangehood / Applicant claims refund for defects for all areas of work / Held: Goods are to be provided with reasonable skill and care / Respondent not liable for any issues regarding internal gutter and pitch /  Respondent to remove roof and refund Applicant / Concrete tiles are in reasonable condition and Applicant’s tile claim not made / Drip tray to be replaced / Claim allowed / Respondent to pay Applicant $8057.56.