Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased vehicle from Respondent which had serious engine issues & was uneconomic to repair / whether vehicle sold privately or ‘in trade’ / whether vehicle of acceptable quality & what, if any, remedies available / Held: Respondent sold several vehicles a year so ‘in trade’ / vehicle not of acceptable quality as not free from defects & reasonable consumer would not regard it as acceptable given price paid & statement it was in ‘mint condition’ / failure substantial so Applicant entitled to full refund as well as any foreseeable losses resulting from failure / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4839.88 & Applicant to make vehicle available for pick up within three weeks of amount being received / claim allowed

Fencing / Fencing Act 1978 / Applicant’s cows crossed over to Respondent’s neighbouring property / Applicant claimed fence in need of repair / Applicant issued fencing notice on Respondent / repairs carried out within days of notice / Applicant claimed half the cost of fence repairs / Held: Respondent not liable to pay for repairs / repairs carried out before notice period was up / fence not destroyed or damaged by sudden accident or other cause / claim dismissed

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant delivered vehicle to the first Respondent for repair / first Respondent repaired vehicle and issued invoice to Applicant / Applicant paid part of invoice amount / first Respondent asked second Respondent to look at vehicle due to a further problem / second Respondent gave preliminary diagnosis but received no further instructions from first Respondent / vehicle delivered back to Applicant after some months / Applicant claimed original issue not resolved, vehicle not driveable and had cosmetic issues / Applicant claimed refund of amount paid, declaration of non-liability for balance of amount invoiced and compensation for tow, registration, insurance and repair costs / Held: Applicant did not have a contractual relationship with second Respondent / second Respondent not contractually liable to Applicant / first Respondent did not perform service with reasonable care and skill / first Respondent had Applicant’s car in their possession f...

Contract / Respondent booked appointment for Applicant to service his appliance / Respondent did not cancel appointment / when Applicant arrived, Respondent informed him he no longer required his services / Applicant claimed call out and mileage fee / Held: Respondent breached contract by failing to cancel service / Respondent liable to pay applicant call out and mileage fee / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $230.23.

Misrepresentation / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicant purchased forklift from  Respondent / forklift advertised as a demo model with low hours / Applicant claimed battery needed replacing / age of forklift represented as near new when it was a 2004 model / Applicant claimed refund of purchase price / Held: silence can constitute misleading conduct / description gave rise to a duty to clarify forklift was not near new / failure to clarify constituted misleading conduct / forklift’s worth significantly less than price paid / claim allowed / Applicant entitled to cancel contract and get full refund / Respondent ordered to pay $9,200 to applicant and collect forklift at own cost

Contract / Civil Aviation Act 1990, s.91Z / Applicants booked return flights with Second Respondent and second flight was cancelled / Applicants booked a replacement flight with different airline / Second Respondent refunded fare of $343 / Applicants seek compensation of $1,999.99 for undue stress and extra costs incurred due to the cancellation and necessity to book another flight at a later date / Held: a carrier is liable for damages caused by delay unless delay made necessary by force majeure (unforeseeable circumstances) / mechanical breakdown is a foreseeable event / carrier not liable if they take all necessary steps to avoid damage or it is not possible to take those steps / Respondent delayed decision to cancel flight to a point where passengers would struggled to get alternative flights or accommodation / Respondent only operated one aeroplane and had no replacement / Respondent bears this as a business risk / Terms and Conditions purporting to limit Respondent’s liability ha...

Negligence / Applicants purchased house / Respondent painted house before it was sold to the Applicants / paint work deteriorated / Applicants repainted house / Applicants claimed cost of repainting house from Respondent / Held: Respondent did not owe Applicants a duty of care / Building Act 2004 does not cover painting / no physical damage or safety concerns / only original recipient of a service can enforce guarantee under the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / insufficient proximity between painter and subsequent homeowners / claim dismissed

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

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...

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.

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.

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.

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