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.

Search results

436 items matching your search terms

  1. ET & ETT v UG Ltd & UGG [2016] NZDT 962 (13 July 2016) [PDF, 147 KB]

    Contract / Applicants chartered a boat from Respondent / boat returned to port three days before end of charter period due to bad weather / Respondent offered Applicants a refund / Applicants disputed amount of refund / Respondent’s terms and conditions provided for a 50 per cent refund / Respondent claimed 50 per cent refund only applied to pre-departure cancellations / Applicants interpreted refund to apply when all other conditions met / Applicants claimed refund of 50 per cent of pro-rata fee for unused three days / Held: Applicants entitled to a refund of 50 per cent of the remaining day’s charter fee / Respondent’s terms and conditions ambiguous / wording did not indicate that 50 per cent refund only applied to pre-departure cancellations / doctrine of contra proferentem favoured Applicants’ interpretation / all other conditions met / claim allowed

  2. EH Ltd v US [2016] NZDT 963 (18 July 2016) [PDF, 127 KB]

    Contract / Minor Contract Act 1969 (MCA) / Respondent bid and won a car auction for $2515.00 on Trade Me / Applicant and Trade Me unable to contact Respondent about the purchase / Applicant relisted the car a month later and it sold for $1670.00 / Respondent was a 17-year-old high school student and was in breach of Trade Me’s terms and conditions that users must be 18 years old / Applicant claims damages for the price difference and other costs incurred for second auction / Held: the contract was not part of a considered, negotiated bargain / Respondent did not think she would win the auction as there had been strong competition before she placed her bid / Applicant expected Respondent to be an adult / Respondent failed to communicate her age in a timely manner / placing bids in an online auction is the sort of contract the MCA is designed to protect minors against / contract cannot be enforced / an award of the full amount of damage not appropriate / loss component not included in th...

  3. ED Ltd v UW Ltd [2016] NZDT 922 (1 July 2016) [PDF, 144 KB]

    Contract / Respondent purchased Company B from Company A / Respondent assigned the licence and supply agreement that Company A has with the Applicant / Applicant claimed $15,000.00 for Respondent’s breach of the agreement / Held: Respondent breached cl 8.4 of agreement by not checking whether the Applicant had the items in stock before using another supplier / Applicant breached cl 8.3 of agreement by failing to attempt to supply stock from an alternative supplier when it did not have the item in stock itself / this breach was not a defence to Respondent’s breach of cl 8.4 / meaning of cl 4.7 raised issue of ambiguity / cl 4.7 inserted specifically when Company A purchased business from Company B  so should be treated as having a different meaning than cl 8.4 / Respondent entitled to flexible product sourcing options under cl 4.7 / no evidence showing cl 4.7 not meant to include subsequent buyers of the business / principle of contra proferentum applies so contract is interpreted again...

  4. DL Ltd v VO [2016] NZDT 952 (17 June 2016) [PDF, 88 KB]

    Contract / Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 / Credit (Repossession) Act 1997 (C(R)A) / Respondent took out loan from Applicant of $8598 to purchase motor vehicle / loan secured against motor vehicle / Respondent was to pay $108.53 under consumer credit agreement / Respondent stopped making payments / Applicant repossessed and sold vehicle / Applicant claims $6,936.70 for shortfall following vehicle sale / Held: consumer credit agreement valid, can be enforced and was breached by Respondent / Applicant used all reasonable efforts to obtain best price for vehicle as required under C(R)A / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $6,649.20

  5. DZ v VA, VAV Ltd & VAVU Ltd [2016] NZDT 921 (9 June 2016) [PDF, 86 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant arranged flights through the second and third Respondents / third Respondent disallowed Applicant to travel / second Respondent deducted cancellation fees and refunded balance to Applicant / Applicant claimed refund of fees deducted by second Respondent / Held: third Respondent did not provide its services to Applicant with reasonable skill and care / Applicant entitled to cancel contract with third Respondent because failure could not be remedied / third Respondent liable to pay Applicant damages in compensation / Applicant suffered consequential loss from third Respondent’s breach of the CGA which was the amount charged for second Respondent’s cancellation fees / claim allowed, third Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,550.

  6. DW v VD [2016] NZDT 914 (11 May 2016) [PDF, 154 KB]

    Contract / Contractual Remedies Act 1979 / Applicant purchased a boat from Respondent without inspecting it or performing a sea test / boat had running issues and underwent repairs / Applicant claimed $15,000 on basis of misrepresentation of boat condition and fittings / Held: winch condition of boat misrepresented in advertisement by Respondent / condition of bilge pump misrepresented in advertisement / age of GPS fish finder misrepresented / no other misrepresentations found / caveat emptor, buyer beware principle applies / statements made after contract are not representations / Applicant’s claim brought six years after discovery of problems / Applicant only succeed in parts of claim that amount to misrepresentation / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2866.55.

  7. EG & EGE v UT & UTU [2016] NZDT 949 (21 April 2016) [PDF, 81 KB]

    Contract / Applicants purchased a property from Respondents / greywater was found to be discharging onto Applicants’ property / an investigation revealed septic system began overflowing when blocking plate removed from pipes / Applicants carried out extensive remedial and replacement work / Applicants claimed $15,000.00 from Respondents for their non-disclosure of the issue / Held: Respondent had no issues with the septic system since mid-1970s so had nothing to disclose when asked / no evidence to prove any problem occurred prior to the one the Applicant’s experienced / no other basis for claim / claim dismissed.

  8. K&B Partnership v JC [2016] NZDT 1345 (14 April 2016) [PDF, 184 KB]

    Compensation / Conversion / Respondent shot animal on Applicant’s land / Applicant claimed $15,000 compensation from the Respondent for the animal it owned / Applicants run an animal park in accordance with the Wild Animal Control Act 1977 / Evidence of where animal shot produced by both parties / Tribunal not satisfied by evidence from Respondent that animal was not shot on Applicant’s land / Held: animal most probably shot on Applicant’s land / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay $15,000

  9. DK v VP Ltd & VPV [2016] NZDT 944 (6 April 2016) [PDF, 86 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA), ss 32 and 43 / Applicant left car at Respondent’s airport parking facility / employee damaged car while moving it / damage repaired at a cost of $2,275.16 by Applicant’s insurer / Applicant and Applicant’s insurer claim for that amount / Held: Applicant meets definition of consumer under CGA / Respondent’s terms and conditions do not exclude liability as employee was driving the car and Respondent cannot contract out of CGA, under s 43 / driving is an integral part of Respondent’s service and crashing the car is a failure of reasonable care and skill except in extraordinary circumstances / evidence not able to establish any extraordinary circumstances / Applicants entitled to remedy under s 32, CGA / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2,275.16

  10. DY & DYD v VB [2016] NZDT 941 (1 April 2016) [PDF, 128 KB]

    Application for rehearing out of time / parties had 28 days after original hearing to file rehearing application / Tribunal received Respondent’s application six weeks out of time / Held: reason for delay alone would not prevent rehearing / Respondent had enough notice to produce evidence before original hearing / would be an unreasonable burden on Applicants to overturn original decision after full hearing / insufficient preparation for hearing not grounds to have matter reopened / leave to apply for rehearing out of time declined.

  11. DT v VG [2016] NZDT 939 (23 March 2016) [PDF, 125 KB]

    Negligence / car collision / Applicant and Respondent had a side-on collision as Respondent changed lanes to the left, then came back to the right, colliding with Applicant’s vehicle / Held: Respondent fully moved into left lane as damage to Applicant’s car extends the entire left side which is not possible to occur if both vehicles are partially occupying same lane / Respondent liable in negligence for damage to Applicant’s car as did not ensure it was safe to change lanes back to the right / Applicant did not contribute to the impact / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4,606.35 for repair and rental car costs

  12. CY-Ltd-v-XB-and-XBX-2016-892-21-March-2016 [PDF, 80 KB]

    Contract / Credit Contract and Consumer Finance Act 2003 (CCCFA) / sale and purchase of land / Respondents stopped making payments for loan relating to purchase / Applicant claims amount outstanding / HELD: Tribunal found that Applicant is a creditor and that the agreement between the parties is a consumer credit contract under CCCFA / however, as Applicant did not comply with disclosure provisions under CCCFA, it cannot enforce consumer credit agreement / also, Applicant might not be registered as a financial service provider and may not be a member of any approved dispute resolution scheme / claim dismissed

  13. CP Ltd v XL Ltd 2016 NZDT 906 (16 March 2016) [PDF, 123 KB]

    Contract / sale and purchase of business / while restaurant equipment included on chattels list, equipment required to run restaurant not included / Applicant’s claim reduced to maximum amount claimable in Tribunal for one year’s hire of equipment not provided / Respondent counterclaimed for unpaid balance of stock-in-trade / Held: Respondent breached contract by failing to include all assets used to run business / while Applicant required to check and approve equipment, Applicant did not fail to perform due diligence / Applicant’s claim not challenged, Respondent’s counterclaim payable / claim and counter-claim allowed, Respondent to pay Applicant $12,522.69

  14. IB v IY [2016] NZDT 1407 (25 Feburary 2016) [PDF, 96 KB]

    Tort / Negligence / Collision between Applicant and Respondent’s cars / Parties dispute whether Applicant had already turned left or was just turning left at the time of collision / Applicant claims $1846.44 for estimated cost of repairs to her car / Held: Respondent failed to give way to Applicant as she was required to do and is responsible for damage caused / Respondent liable in negligence for estimated cost of repairs / Claim allowed.

  15. CZ-v-XA-2016-NZDT-894-25-February-2016 [PDF, 68 KB]

    Negligence / car collision / Land Transport (RoadUser) Rule 2004, r 7.2 / Applicant’s insurance company claimed againstRespondent for repairs / HELD: Respondent created hazard and caused the collisionby opening car door / therefore, Tribunal found Respondent was negligent havingbreached duty of care owed to Applicant / repair costs quoted and actualrepairs undertaken consistent with damage / claim allowed, Respondent orderedto pay insurance company $1,708.72

  16. SR v GI [2016] NZDT 1070 (17 February 2016) [PDF, 274 KB]

    SR v GI [2016] NZDT 1070 (17 February 2016)Contract / two separate disputes / parties friends for many years first dispute / Respondent offered to take Applicant’s coffee machine panels along with the Respondent’s own panels to be polished / Applicant gave Respondent $450 in cash to cover both sets of panels, on understanding Respondent would pay back $200 / Respondent took panels to second company to polish after first company damaged one / second company charged $250 / Applicant claims Respondent kept the $450 / Respondent claims Applicant told to deduct coffee machine panel money from proceeds after Applicant sold generator on Respondent’s behalf / second dispute / Applicant gave used Suzuki RM250 2008 factory plastics to Respondent so Respondent could sell motorcycle / claims Respondent promised to replace plastics when second motorcycle returned from workshop / Respondent claims plastics were given in return for work done on Applicant’s motorcycle / Applicant claims $970 for both ...

  17. EC & ECE v UX Ltd [2016] NZDT 895 (12 February 2016) [PDF, 86 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent to replace existing grout in shower / nickel shower drain was scratched and first grout failed / Respondent removed and replaced it / second scratch made / Respondent denied fault for scratch / Applicant claimed $6000 for full replacement of shower drain and regrouting, and claimed remedial work was inadequate / Held: both scratches caused by Respondent / scratches constitute a failure of reasonable care and skill / insufficient evidence to show remedial work was not of acceptable quality / it is appropriate for another supplier to replace the shower drain / another grouting job will also be required / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $600.00.

  18. DJ v VQ Ltd [2016] NZDT 897 (12 February 2016) [PDF, 22 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent to hydro-seed lawn for $1,300 / grass was not growing well several weeks later / Applicant claims fence marked during spraying and claims full refund of $1,300 / Held: Applicant failed to establish evidence that Respondent’s service not carried out with reasonable care and skill / Respondent did not make undertakings to provide ongoing lawn maintenance and lawn’s ultimate health depends on its ongoing care and watering / Applicant’s evidence unable to prove claims / claim dismissed

  19. DS v VH Ltd [2016] NZDT 898 (11 February 2016) [PDF, 24 KB]

    Contract / Applicant wanted to purchase a car from Respondent to convert to taxi / parties made written and verbal agreements that Respondents would fix some issues with the car and Applicant would purchase it for $21,000 / Respondents would repay $1,000 deposit if car could not be converted / Applicant asked more questions about car after agreement made, was not satisfied with answers and sent an email to cancel order / Applicant claims for refund of deposit / Held: conditional contract was formed when deposit was paid and handwritten document was signed / Applicant was only entitled to cancel contract if conditions recorded on written agreement were not met / Applicant breached contract by invalid cancellation / deposit only refundable if contract terms not met / Respondent entitled to retain deposit / claim dismissed.

  20. FP v TK [2016] NZDT 1044 (20 January 2016) [PDF, 110 KB]

    Insurance / negligence / three-car collision / Applicant stopped behind third-party vehicle / Respondent drove into back of Applicant’s vehicle causing Applicant to collide with vehicle in front / Applicant claiming $15,000 for damage to front and back of vehicle / Respondent claimed Applicant had already crashed into rear of front vehicle before Respondent hit from behind / Respondent argues that full frontal damage attributable to first impact / Held: Respondent caused at least $15,000 worth of damage even if two separate impacts were not proven / Respondent to pay $15,000 / claim allowed

  21. DR v VI Ltd [2015] NZDT 877 (22 December 2015) [PDF, 119 KB]

    Contract / disagreement over invoice cost / Applicant hired Respondent to install hot water cylinder and change pipes to a high-pressure system / Respondent sent invoice for $1,298.20 / Applicant did not pay and seeks declaration that he is only liable to pay $700 / Held: law of contact provides for a party to pay for services performed under contract / Applicant liable to pay Respondent’s invoice in full / Respondent performed service Applicant contracted them to perform / Applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to prove invoice not justified / claim dismissed, Applicant to pay full invoice of $1,298.20 to Respondent

  22. EB v UY [2015] NDT 867 (11 December 2015) [PDF, 81 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Respondent performed renovation work on Applicant’s bathroom / several problems found with bathroom / Respondent performed remedial work / independent tile and waterproofing consultant advised applicant shower needed to be rebuilt / Applicant claims $1966.83 for remedial costs / Held: Respondent did not perform work with reasonable care and skill / finished product not of acceptable quality / Respondent handyman not tiler but still bound to meet statutory obligations towards customer under CGA / attempted remedies by Respondent unsuccessful / Applicant entitled to have work done by another supplier and recover costs from Respondent / Applicant also entitled to recover costs of independent inspection and report / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant remedial costs of $1966.83.

  23. FD v WJ Ltd & LD Ltd [2015] NZDT 1465 (10 December 2015) [PDF, 147 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased truck cab and chassis from respondent / Purchase included mechanical breakdown insurance / Respondent not authorised by Second Respondent to issue mechanical breakdown insurance for vehicles over 6,000kg / Vehicle’s ABS control unit failed and replaced at cost of $3,474.60 / Applicant claims $1,479.60 against Respondent and Second Respondent for breach of the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Held: the Respondent through their agent the Second Respondent failed to take adequate care / No consequential loss / Claim dismissed

  24. FB v TY & TYY [2015] NZDT 1049 (10 December 2015) [PDF, 159 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant purchased truck cab and chassis from first Respondent which included mechanical breakdown insurance (MBI) / first Respondent not authorised by second Respondent (insurer) to issue MBI for that type of vehicle / insurer cancelled insurance policy and refunded premium / ABS control unit failed and was replaced / Applicant previously brought a claim against first Respondent in Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal (MVDT) / Applicant claimed damages against first and second respondent  for breach of CGA and loss of cover / Held: matter should not be relitigated / issues in dispute in earlier proceedings between same parties cannot be the subject of proceedings in the Tribunal / issues raised in MVDT proceedings essentially the same / first Respondent had apparent authority to act on insurer’s behalf and approve insurance / first Respondent failed to take adequate care in supplying MBI services and provide MBI policy fit for Applicant’s purpose / ins...

  25. DI v VR Ltd [2015] NZDT 865 (10 December 2015) [PDF, 126 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / guarantee of reasonable care and skill / Applicant brought velvet boots to Respondent for resoling / when returned, Applicant noticed each boot was damaged and notified Respondent / Respondent undertook repair but left boots in worse state / Applicant claims refund for re-soling, at $35, and cost of replacement boots, at $700, plus Tribunal filing fee / Held: Respondent breached CGA guarantee of providing service with reasonable care and skill as damage was caused during course of service provided / Applicant entitled to statutory remedies / s 32(b) and (c), CGA / Applicant entitled to reduction in value of service due to failure below price paid and any reasonably foreseeable consequential losses / reduction in value of service is its entire value of $35 due to serious nature of damage / given extent of damage, only remedy available is replacement of boots / Tribunal filing fee cannot be awarded / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay...