Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

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

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

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

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

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...

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