Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

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.

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.

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.

Bailment / Applicant left car in Respondent’s workshop overnight / the workshop burnt down and Applicant’s car was damaged / Applicant claimed Respondent was liable to repair the car / Held: Respondent not at fault and damage occurred despite taking all reasonable precautions / evidence shows the cause of the fire was through arson / Respondent’s non-replacement of the workshop security cameras after having been stolen a week earlier not sufficient for finding fault for the fire / Applicant could have arranged insurance cover on the car to guard against this type of risk / claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a Jeep second hand which was covered by the balance of a 3-year manufacturer’s warranty / Respondent was the local authorised service repair centre for Jeep and performed 27 warranty claims for Applicant without cost to Applicant / Applicant claimed $10,887.51 from Respondent because Applicant was unhappy with the repairs / Held: no evidence to establish that the repairs performed by the Respondent failed / no evidence that wear and tear items should have been covered by a warranty claim / no failures established so nothing was recoverable / claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant purchased concert tickets via Trade Me from a seller who identified as the Respondent / concert was cancelled / Ticketmaster issued refunds to ticket purchasers / Applicant did not receive a refund from Respondent / Applicant claimed $1260 for refund received from Ticketmaster / Held: no contract between Applicant and Respondent / Respondent a victim of identity theft / Respondent not the seller / Respondent did not receive a refund / Respondent did not owe applicant any money / claim dismissed

Contract / independent contractor / Applicant engaged as contract builder by Respondent through written contract / Respondent allocated 96 hours for job, which extended to 116 following issues arising in work / Respondent has paid Applicant for 122 hours / Applicant claims $2,978.50 for additional 74 unpaid hours / Held: Applicant was working on estimate rather than fixed price basis under the contract / Applicant required to invoice time that reflected assigned hours / standard industry practice allows 15% margin on estimates above allocated hours towards actual time on job / Applicant entitled to charge and be paid for 110.4 hours for original scope of work / unpredictable issues arose during job that required more time / Respondent did not allocate additional hours for this increase by mutual agreement with Applicant, as was required under contract / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant additional hours for estimate and issues that arose, totalling $1,465.10

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant purchased type A factory bike from original owner / Respondent was the licensed importer / dirt found in the motorcycle’s airbox caused serious damage to the engine / Applicant repaired the bike himself and claimed for his losses / Held: motorbike not of acceptable quality / inadequate airbox filter system compromised bike’s durability / Respondent considered manufacturer / Applicant able to claim against manufacturer for losses relating to engine failure / Applicant not required by CGA to send bike to Respondent for examination  / Applicant unable to profit from engine failure / amount of losses not changed for betterment or loss of value / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $8,318.08 and to arrange for collection of damaged engine from Applicant at own cost.

Contract / misrepresentation / Contractual Remedies Act 1979 / Applicant purchased used car from Respondent after seeing advertisement / Applicant purchased car after completing a test drive / Applicant claimed for necessary repairs and filing fee / Held: no misrepresentation / statements in advertisement were general and either true as far as anyone knew or statements of opinion / Applicant not induced into contract by advertisement having inspected the car and test drove it / advertisement merely induced Applicant to investigate further and do own checks on the car / an example of a “buyer beware” situation / claim dismissed

Jurisdiction / parties were in a de facto relationship for six years during which Respondent established a family trust that purchased leasehold property / parties lived together in the property as co-tenants / trust did not renew lease when leasehold expired, relationship broke up and both parties left the property / Applicant claimed $4,868.07 for money spent on improvements and maintenance / Held: all transactions between parties governed by the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 / Tribunal does not have jurisdiction under Property (Relationships) Act / even if Applicant’s claim treated as against Respondent in her capacity as trustee, relationship between Applicant and trust is that of tenant and landlord and transactions between them may raise relationship property issues / claim struck out.

Jurisdiction / survey marks and boundary fence / Cadastral Survey Act 2002 (CSA) / Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 (DTA) / Fencing Act 1978 (FA) / parties are neighbours / Applicant removed part of boundary fence to safely remove tree stumps / Applicant noticed two boundary pegs missing while reinstating fence / Applicant claims $1,0355 from Respondent for cost to survey and reinstate boundary pegs on grounds that Respondent removed or tar sealed them during previous driveway maintenance / Respondent counterclaims $1,889.75 in legal costs, stating Applicant verbally agreed to resurvey fence when finished with trees / Held: no jurisdiction to hear Applicant’s claim of interference with survey marks as under s 55, CSA / no jurisdiction over survey cost matters under FA, ss 24(p) and 24A(1) / no jurisdiction over claims involving survey pegs as they cannot qualify as “property” under s 10(1)(c), DTA / Respondent not awarded legal costs as Applicant had arguable case for claim and did not know ...

Contract / misrepresentation / sale and purchase of land / Fair Trading Act 1986, sections 9, 14 and 43(3)(f) / Real Estate Agents Act 2008, sections 155 and 110(3) / Applicant claimed against Respondent real estate agent for misrepresentation, failing to disclose structural issues and pressure on her to buy property / Respondent claimed that Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal already determined this matter / HELD: while Respondent breached Fair Trading Act, Applicant did not rely on misrepresentation / building report identified issues with piles, but Applicant still proceeded with purchase / no longer any causal connection between Respondent’s misleading conduct and Applicant’s decision to proceed with purchase / claim dismissed

Jurisdiction / Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 / Applicant undertook development work and disputes arose regarding the legality of drainage work and cost of fencing on shared boundaries / Applicants sought declaration that drainage work was legal and claimed $3,800 for the cost of fencing and $4,128.50 in legal fees / Held: Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to make a declaration as sought by Applicant / cannot make a declaration in Respondents’ favour / no basis to make an order for cost of fencing against Respondents as Applicant had not served a Fencing Act notice and there was no agreement / no basis to make an order against Respondents for legal costs incurred by Applicants / claim dismissed.