Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Tort / Negligence / Applicant's vehicle collided with Respondent's vehicle which was part way through a righthand turn / Respondent denies liability on the basis that Applicant was driving too fast / Applicant's vehicle was written off / Applicant claimed $4,757.13 / Held: Respondent failed to take reasonable care because he turned right across Applicant's lane without giving way / Respondent failed to see Applicant / Applicant exceeded speed limit at time of collision / Respondent's liability is at 90% / Applicant's insurer not estopped from pursuing claim against Respondent / Claimed costs are reasonable / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant's insurer $4,281.42 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant paid $22,722 for Respondent's dental services / Applicant disputed amount charged for second crown / Applicant unhappy with yellowing of veneers which she said look like smokers teeth / Applicant claimed $27,965 for costs to replace all veneers, difference for price paid for second crown, application fee and emotional stress / Held: Applicant failed to establish Respondent did not exercise reasonable care and skill or that final outcome produced was not reasonably fit for purpose / Applicant well informed of options and expected results / Faint colouration in Applicant's teeth not within construct of ceramic veneers but resulting from natural tooth colour underneath veneer / No breach of contract or statutory guarantees / Respondent failed to give agreed discount for both crowns / Applicant not entitled to claim costs relating to veneers, application fee and emotional stress / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $200 / Claim dismissed…

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased outdoor kitchen barbeque from Respondent for $3,999 with an agreed $199 shipping cost / Applicant chased up delivery with Respondent and was informed of a higher cost of shipping / Applicant claimed refund of $190 paid for additional shipping cost / Held: term of contract as to price for shipping not varied by agreement / Both parties mistakenly believed the shipping cost to be $199, and therefore there has been a mistake covered by law / Applicant entitled to $199 refund as parties are bound by original contract terms / Applicant cannot be awarded cost of proceedings / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $190 / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased vehicle from the Respondent for $15,600.00 / Applicant drove the vehicle for 18 months before the vehicle broke down and a major defect was identified / A mechanic investigated and discovered that three of the four connecting rods in the engine had failed / Applicant paid $1,914.80 to have the vehicle towed and investigated / Applicant provided evidence that the Respondent had previously recalled vehicles of this type for "potential machining errors" / Respondent stated that Applicant's VIN number excluded it from the recall / Applicant claims compensation of $18,049.80 from Respondent / Held: Applicant's vehicle was not of acceptable quality / It is probable that the car had a manufacturing defect of the kind that Respondent had identified as a risk and for which it issued its recall notice / Respondent must pay Applicant $12,500.00 for the car that was rendered unusable and uneconomical to repair by reason of the manuf…

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Respondent worked on Applicant's vehicle / Applicant claimed engine installed by Respondent was not fit for purpose / Applicant claimed $20,823.50 refund of amount paid to Respondent and costs incurred repairing Respondent's work / Held: Technical evidence provided by Applicant was inconclusive / Applicant failed to prove on balance of probabilities that Respondent did not provide its services with reasonable care and skill as required by CGA / Respondent barred by Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 from claiming compensation / Counter-claim dismissed / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant sold vehicle to Respondent / Respondent refused to complete purchase / Applicant claimed $17,640 comprising of purchase price, storage fees and interest / Held: there was a binding contract for sale and purchase of vehicle at agreed price of $15,500 / Insufficient evidence to find that the Applicant supplied vehicle in trade / Condition of warrant of fitness not fulfilled therefore Respondent entitled to decline purchase / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Property Law Act 2007 (‘PLA’) / Applicant was winning bidder at an auction / Applicant had bid $822,000 to buy Respondents' home / Respondents refused to sign sale and purchase agreement / Lawyers became involved / Applicant claimed $8,000 in breach of contract and $6,101.90 for damages / Held: Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear claim / Respondents breached contractual obligation by refusing to sign sale and purchase agreement /  In breach of contract innocent party must be put in same position as if contract had been performed / Applicant spent $6,101.90 on legal fees as result of contract not being signed / Respondent to pay Applicant $6,101.90 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Respondent requested quote from the Applicant for blinds / Applicants created a quote after measuring Respondent’s home / Total cost for blinds was $6965 / Terms and conditions in quote stated acceptance of quote required 50% deposit / Respondent accepted quote but did not pay 50% deposit / Applicant tried to contact Respondent after blinds made /  Respondent told Applicant that she could not pay for blinds / Respondent also stated she had not accepted terms of contract / Applicant claimed for payment of $7199 for blinds / Held: a contract was formed between the parties / Words used by Respondent support view that quote was accepted and contract therefore entered into / Respondent to pay Applicant $6965 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicant provided immigration services to the Respondent and its clients / Terms of the agreement were detailed in a contract / After the relationship ended the Applicant invoiced Respondent for services she had provided for Visa applications that were not approved / Applicant stated she had not invoiced these throughout the relationship / The reason given was as Respondent had refused to pay for the first declined VISA application and she did not want to jeopardise the relationship / Applicant claimed $9,092.50 for unpaid invoices / Whether the parties agreed that Applicant was to be paid for all Visa applications that she made or only those that were approved / Held: likely that the Applicant was not to be paid for all Visa applications that she made, only those that were approved / If a visa was not approved then a client will not arrive in New Zealand / The provision that Applicant would be paid a commission when a client arrives in New Zealand was therefore likely cond…

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1986 (CGA) / Fair Trading Act 1993 (FTA) / Applicant was customer of Respondent who provided gas bottle deliveries / Applicant believed they were overcharged for 31 deliveries and was not told signing a 12 month contract would reduce rate charged or about other discounts / Respondent terminated services to Applicant following Applicant making complaint / Applicant claimed $1318 as refund of overcharged amount / Held: unproven that services provided by Respondent to Applicant breached the CGA / Applicant engaged Respondent on ongoing basis meaning either party could terminate arrangement / Respondent's terms and condition allow changes in pricing with notification to customers which Applicant had received / Reasonable service and price obligations on Respondent did not require standardised pricing nor informing customers of promotions / Customer's responsibility to seek information on the best deal for services / No breach of FTA for same reasons /…

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Contracts and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Respondents engaged Applicants to design holiday home for $25,000 plus GST / Applicant delivered sketch design in three stages which Respondents were dissatisfied with and refused to pay / Applicant claimed $28,959.25 for unpaid fees and legal costs / Held: Respondents jointly and severally liable to pay $33,977.31 / Contractual fee due was $25,000 plus GST / Applicant completed work with reasonable care and skill and no misrepresentation or repudiation occurred / No issue with designs Applicant prepared beyond differing from client’s expectations but Respondents did not allow Applicant opportunity to revise design / Interest awarded of $39,77.31 / Limited legal costs awarded due to Tribunal jurisdiction cap / Respondents ordered to pay $33,977.31 / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) / Applicant booked flights with Respondent but accidentally booked opposite direction of intended travel / Applicant asked Respondent for refund or flight change / Respondent said fare type did not allow refund or free changes but Applicant could pay $1604 to change flights / Part of amount charged included $320 contact handling centre fee / Applicant claimed refund of $1064 additional flight change fees /  Held: Applicant made mistake but should have taken reasonable care to book flights in right direction / No remedy under CGA when consumer mistakenly purchases good or service / Not unfair under s 26A FTA for airline to impose charges for flexibility of fare types or flight changes / Respondent accepted they should not have imposed contact centre handling fee / Respondent to refund $320 contact centre handling fee to Applicant / Claim accepted in part.

Contract law / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA) / Applicants purchased racehorse from Respondent for $22,500, intending to use the horse for equestrian events / Shortly after purchase, horse exhibited behavioural issues / Veterinary investigations shows horse had congenital condition known as Kissing Spine / Applicants claimed refund of $22,500 plus $4,890.13 in associated costs / Held: Respondent made an innocent misrepresentation by stating the horse was suitable for eventing, which induced Applicants into contract / Horse not suitable for eventing / Although respondent unaware of the congenital condition, the misrepresentation entitled the Applicants to compensation / Under CCLA the Applicants could not cancel the contract but were entitled to compensation for their losses / Respondent ordered to pay Applicants $27,390 / Claim allowed.