Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Applicant knew a lot about particular brand of car and purchased one from Respondent via online selling platform / Respondent's advertisement said car had been imported as a write off then repaired and resold / Parties arranged for car to be inspected prior to purchase by company specialising in the particular car brand  / Applicant then organised for same company to complete WOF check and service without consulting Respondent / Applicant informed Respondent car needed some repairs and asked for lower price / Respondent refused lower price as advertisement clearly stated the price would not be lowered due to WOF issues / Respondent then informed Applicant sale was "private as is sale" / Applicant prepared sale and purchase agreement for full price and signed and sent it to Respondent / Respondent added comment on agreement referring to 'as is' nature of sale / Applicant did not initial words added by Respondent but paid Respondent full purchase price / Car broke down complet…

Consumer law / Misrepresentation / Applicant purchased a campervan from Respondent for $30,000.00 / Applicant subsequently discovered a severe rust issue causing leaks, which was uneconomic to repair / Applicant sought a full reimbursement of purchase price / Held:  advertisement did not misrepresent the vehicle's condition / During the Applicant's inspection of the vehicle prior to the sale, it was evident that repairs were needed, including addressing rust / Onus was on the Applicant to make all necessary checks before he agreed to purchase / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicants purchased house from Respondent and found toilet drainage issues upon moving in / Applicants' plumber said drain was damaged for a long time / Respondent's plumber unaware of any issues with toilet / Six week period where house unoccupied after settlement / Respondent experienced no issues while living in property up to settlement date / Applicants claimed $4753.41 as compensation for plumbing and drainlaying costs / Held: insufficient evidence that toilet not in reasonable working at settlement date, so no breach of contract / Respondent had no issues with toilet / In-pipe camera showed tree root had broken pipe but insufficient to show problem was apparent on settlement date / Period that house was unoccupied after settlement may have exacerbated previously unknown issues / No evidence to establish misrepresentation claim / No legal basis for compensation claim / Claim dismissed.  

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a washer/drier / Over four years after purchase a fault developed / Repairer found a wire had broken on the motor plug / Applicant claimed the machine had a 10 year manufacturer’s warranty / Held:  wiring not a part of the inverter motor / Wiring a separate component / Claim under manufacturer’s warranty failed / No evidence that warranty information was misleading/ Not proven that the problem was due to a failure to comply with the guarantee/ Claim dismissed.

Property / Applicants and Respondents were friends and agreed to rent a house together / Friendship became strained / Parties agreed Applicants would leave and Respondents would stay on in the tenancy / Applicant said he paid the bond and was due to be refunded the full amount of $2,720.00 / Applicant also claimed for one week rent paid in advance, and to be refunded half share of a jointly purchased vacuum cleaner and a table / Held: Respondent agreed to pay Applicant half of what they paid for vacuum cleaner, being $118.73 / Respondent was happy for Applicant to collect table, but Applicant chose not to, therefore no award made for table / During hearing Applicant agreed no rent was due to him / Absent any written agreement that Applicant paid the full bond, Applicant failed to prove he was entitled to a greater share than half the bond / Applicants entitled to be refunded $1,360.00 for their portion of the bond and $118.73 for their share of the vacuum cleaner / Respondents ordered …

Contract / Applicant and her husband were unable to board an international flight with the Respondent airline / Applicant had checked in online and had no luggage to check in / Upon arrival at the airport, Applicant and her husband were advised that they had to print their boarding passes before proceeding beyond the security checks / They were advised that their boarding passes could not be printed and they would not be able to board the flight / Applicant was advised that they would need to rebook their flights / Applicant and her husband booked international flights for the following day / Applicant sought $1237.90 from for two one-way international flights ($834.90), one night’s accommodation ($295) and meals ($108) / Held: terms and conditions on the ticket and boarding passes were not sufficiently clear / Information provided by the Respondent was open to interpretation and not fit for purpose for customers like the Applicant / Respondent breached the contract by not allowing the…

Contract / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant painted Respondent's property / Respondent disputed invoice / Respondent paid partial amount only / Applicant claimed payment for remaining balance of invoice / Held: parties did not reach an agreement as to price / No certainty on cost of job / Applicant made a misleading representation as to the price of services / Applicant breached FTA / Not reasonable for Respondent to charge apprentice painters the same as experienced painters / Reasonable figure calculated higher than alternative quote sourced by Respondent as four coats of paint were needed / Respondent liable to pay part of remaining balance / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Quasi contract / Property / Applicant and Respondent were flatmates / Applicant moved out of flat / Applicant refused to pay rent further than five weeks until Respondent found a new flatmate / Respondent reduced Applicant's bond / Applicant claimed rent and debt collector costs / Held: agreed in the flat that a flatmate remained liable to pay rent until a new flatmate was found / Therefore, Applicant obliged to pay all the rent until a new flatmate was found / Applicant's flatmates not liable to pay debt collection costs / Claim dismissed.

Trespass / Contract / Land Transport Act 1998 / Vehicle registered in Applicant's name parked in private carpark without authority / Respondent sent Applicant a breach notice which Applicant disputed and asked for evidence proving breach / Respondent said registered owner of vehicle liable per New Zealand Transport Authority and provided one photo that did not evidence illegal parking / Applicant said lack of contract with Respondent meant Applicant had no liability / Respondent lodged debt for collection with debt collection agency and Applicant filed claim with Tribunal / Applicant claimed for order that she is not liable to pay Respondent for breach notice, collection costs and sought reimbursement of filing fee / Respondent counterclaimed for payment of breach notice, collection costs and interest / Held: Applicant is not liable for breach fee as she was not driving vehicle at the time / No provisions applicable in tort that mean a registered owner can be liable for another's tresp…

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant attended sewage pump overflow on Respondent's property to replace pump and control panel / Respondent paid Applicant's $7348.33 invoice but thought quote was for $1840.67 / Applicant attended second overflow and invoiced Respondent for $3845.20 / Respondent refused payment of second invoice / Applicant did not attend third call out because of non-payment / Applicant claimed $3845.20 for unpaid invoice / Respondent counterclaimed for $4900 for additional costs incurred following Applicant's failure to identify fault / Held: Applicant had performed services with reasonable care and skill by correctly identifying pump and control panel faults / Three separate problems with sewage system requiring separate work and expertise / Price Applicant's charged was reasonable / Respondent received proper communication from Applicant about costs including that $1840.67 was call-out charge only / Respondent did not incur additional or unnecessar…

Consumer law / Property / Chattels / Applicant purchased property from Respondent / After settlement, Applicant discovered problem with free-standing stove / Applicant claimed Respondent breached Sale and Purchase Agreement in relation to the warranties for chattels / Held: Applicant proved it was more likely than not that the stove was not in reasonable working order at settlement time / Loss identified was the value of a very old stove / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $100 / Claim allowed in part.

Trespass / Parking / Applicant’s car was parked for five minutes in a private parking area managed by Respondent / Parking area had signs indicating no parking / Breach notice was sent to Applicant demanding payment of $95.00 / Applicant received late payment notices totalling $225.00 / Respondent then passed the matter to a debt collection agency, which added fees / Respondent claimed it was entitled to total of $555.69, including $193.20 for debt collection fees and $42.49 for interest / Applicant sought a declaration that he was not liable to pay fees demanded by Respondent / Held: no contractual basis for parking fee / Trespass to park on private property without authority / Damages measured by determining a reasonable fee for use of the land / Car parking area overall was nearly full when Applicant parked there / Risk of genuine customers being turned away / $95.00 was a reasonable fee in the circumstances / In absence of contract, no basis for Respondent to charge extra for late …

Contract / Applicant carried out building on behalf of friend / Friend had been contracted by Respondent / Relationship between two parties soured / Applicant states that Respondent meddled with work / Applicant sent Respondent a letter to terminate contract / Applicant states Respondent and Respondent’s workers became absent / Applicant claims $9,539.32 in unpaid work / Respondent counters Applicant wrongfully terminated contract and denies liability to pay / Held: Applicant wrongfully terminated contract / Claim dismissed.