Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003 / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased campervan from Respondent / Campervan’s engine blew up some days after purchase / Repairs cost $4304.74 / Applicant subsequently sold the campervan with camping equipment for a higher price / Applicant claimed cost of repairs / Held: Respondent was a motor vehicle trader / Campervan was not of acceptable quality under / Failure was of a substantial character / Respondent misrepresented campervan being mechanically safe and sound / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4304.74 / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant had a solar system installed at his house / Solar inverter broke and need replacing / Installer was in liquidation and new part was provided and installed by Respondent  / Applicant concerned that replacement inverter was a pre-owned part / Applicant sought compensation because replacement part was not the same as the original part / Held: Applicant not entitled to compensation / Applicant did not show anything wrong with replacement inverter / No evidence indicating why original inverter failed / No loss suffered / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Accident Compensation Act 2001 (ACA) / Applicant engaged Respondent for dental services / Respondent gave Applicant five fillings, Applicant paid $1,790 / Applicant had ongoing pain after dental work / Four fillings had been placed over active decay, had to be replaced / Applicant claimed $13,425.00 damages / Held: Respondent’s work in relation to four of the five fillings was not provided with reasonable care and skill and was not fit for purpose / Failure was of substantial nature / Respondent liable to refund Applicant price paid for four of the fillings / Applicant could not claim compensation for pain suffered following treatment, likely personal injury barred by ACA / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,432.00 / Claim allowed in part.

Negligence / Damages / Applicant and Respondent involved in vehicle collision / Applicant braked suddenly for pedestrian / Respondent following too closely and was unable to stop / Damage caused to Applicant’s car / Respondent disputed repair costs and pre-accident value of Applicant’s car / Applicant claimed repair costs / Held: repair costs proven as reasonable losses suffered as a result of collision / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $9,343.84 / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased new scooter from Respondent / Scooter did not have charging range as advertised / Applicant complained but Respondent only replied when Applicant left negative feedback online / Applicant claimed for refund / Held: Respondent failed to comply with obligations to remedy failure when given an opportunity to do so / Applicant entitled to reject goods / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $705 / Applicant ordered to make scooter available for collection by Respondent once payment has been made / Claim allowed.

Insurance / Respondent suffered damage to dwelling which was subject of an insurance claim / Insurer obtained quote from Respondent and agreed to settled Respondent’s claim / Applicant carried out work / Respondent disputes invoice and maintains invoice was more than actual hours worked / Applicant claims $2055 / Held: Quotes had provided certainty and all parties had agreed to actual time and cost / Claim allowed / Respondent to pay Applicant $2055.

Contract / Applicant purchased mattress for a shared apartment / Respondent was one of the other owners of the apartment / Apartment was owned in quarter shares / Practice for owners to share costs equally / Respondent acknowledged in emails that she was happy to purchase mattress / Respondent later declined to pay part of mattress cost / Mattress cost $1,600 / Applicant sought $400 from Respondent for her share / Held: emails sufficient to form a contract / Respondent agreed to contribute to cost of a new mattress / Respondent not entitled to unilaterally pull out of the contract / Respondent ordered to pay $400 / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 / Applicant purchased two electric scooters from Respondent / Applicant claimed one scooter never charged and second only charged once, ran for approximately 15 minutes, then failed to charge / Applicant sought refund and costs / Applicant claimed additional $5.00 for a third scooter which had been already refunded / Respondent denied liability, claimed Applicant may have damaged scooters  / Held: scooters were not fit for purpose, free from minor defects, or durable / No evidence that Applicant caused damage to scooters / Applicant entitled to reject scooters and obtain full refund / Applicant not entitled to costs or additional $5.00 refund for third scooter / Respondent to pay Applicant $1,050 / Claim allowed in part.

Fencing / Fencing Act 1978 / Applicant did not receive definitive response to fencing proposal and issued a fencing notice to Respondent / Respondent advised Applicant verbally that he did not want to build fence / Applicant claimed Respondent to contribute $20,000 for fencing cost / Held: lack of adequate information in fencing notice / Proposed costs appear excessive for 20m fence / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant entered into an agreement to purchase land from Respondent / Applicant discovered there was no stormwater connection, despite it being a condition of the resource consent / Applicant claimed $29,800.00 in damages against Respondent and its director / Respondent counterclaimed $18,112.50, comprising non-liability and its costs defending proceedings / Held: director not a party to the contract, so that claim was dismissed / Respondent breached contract so must put Applicant in the same position as if contract had been performed / Applicant produced evidence that he had to pay $20,140.50 to establish stormwater connection / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $20,140.50 / Claim granted in part and counterclaim dismissed.  

Contract / Misrepresentation / Applicants purchased land from Respondent / Respondent arranged Geotech report confirming topsoil depths / Site was found to contain more topsoil than advised and Applicants were required to pay additional $7,466.38 by builder / Applicant claimed compensation for additional costs incurred / Held: Respondent misrepresented depth of topsoil prior to settlement / Respondent agreed to pay for removal of additional topsoil / Respondent liable to compensate Applicants for additional costs incurred / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $7,466.38 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant purchased vehicle from Respondent for $19,000.00, of which $1,500.00 plus $1,1000 for warranty was still owing / Vehicle was defective / Respondent took vehicle back for repair and offered Applicant a courtesy vehicle, which she declined as she would have to collect it from another city / Five months later Respondent supplied Applicant with replacement vehicle / Applicant claimed $5000.00 for lost income during period without vehicle, as she was unable to get to work, and balance of contract price waived / Held: Respondent seriously failed to meet obligations under the CGA within reasonable time / It was unreasonable for Applicant to choose not to work for five months rather than to collect courtesy vehicle / Applicant had duty to mitigate loss / Respondent ordered to pay applicant $2,400.00, being $5000.00 less the outstanding amounts due under contract / Claim allowed in part.