Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Applicant contacted Respondent for quote to lay concrete driveway / Respondent requested Applicant to remove garage area from contract and price was reduced / Applicant boxed up the driveway / Respondent told Applicant that boxing was in the wrong place and boxing would have to be altered / Applicant advised that re-boxing would cost extra / Respondent agreed to pay extra cost / Invoice higher than initial quote / Respondent only paid sum in the original quote / Held: Contract is between Applicant and Respondent’s company / Claim struckout with Respondent personally / Parties agreed driveway would follow metalled area / Additional costs were more than minor / Applicant should have updated costing / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant booked a band for his daughter’s wedding / Applicant paid $690.00 deposit / Applicant contacted Respondent to explain band was mistakenly booked / Preferred band was not available so Applicant cancelled / Applicant sought refund of $690.00 deposit and $2000 for pain and suffering relating to his daughter / Held: emails do not indicate qualifying mistake under legislation / Cancellation happened five months before proposed booking date / Sufficient period for band to get another booking / Applicant entitled to a refund of deposit under the contract / Applicant not entitled to $2000 compensation for pain and suffering / Respondent ordered to pay $690 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Applicant entered into a contract with Respondent to provide home concept plans / Parties agreed that Applicant would pay $3,000.00 for concept plans / Applicant ultimately entered into a contract with another company to build her home / Applicant stated there were delays in receiving plans and lack of communication from Respondent / Applicant sought refund of $3,000.00 / Held: Applicant not entitled to a refund / No agreement as to timeframe for receiving plans / Respondent fulfilled their obligations under agreement / Applicant not entitled to a refund or compensation / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased 17 cubic metres of potting mix from Respondent / Mix was meant to be same blend Applicant had been purchasing from Respondent for several years for raising organic seedlings / Within weeks, seedlings were not germinating or were distorted / Respondent offered to replace product / Offer was not accepted, Applicant continued using mix for some months / Applicant sought compensation for loss of stock and profit / Held: lab testing indicated product not consistent with previous orders, not fit for purpose / Respondent therefore in breach of implied and specific terms of contract / However, Applicant failed to mitigate losses, and evidence insufficient to support scale of losses / Applicant entitled to nominal compensation of $200 due to failure of product to be fit for purpose, and $541.77 cost of lab tests / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $741.77 / Claim allowed in part.

Tort / Negligence / Land Transport Road User Rules 2004 / Respondent backed his car into side of Applicant's car causing damage / Applicant claimed damages / Held: Applicant proved it is more likely than not that Respondent was responsible for collision / Applicant was not speeding and cause of collision was failure by Respondent to ensure way was clear before backing the vehicle / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4,847.25 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicant carried out carpet fitting for Respondent in 2021 / In 2023, Applicant claimed Respondent short changed him for an amended quote / Applicant sought $805.00 / Respondent sought costs on the grounds the claim was frivolous and vexatious / Held: not proven that amended quote was offered and accepted / No arguable basis for claim for extra payment / Claim was frivolous and vexatious / Appropriate to award costs / Applicant ordered to pay $360.00 costs to Respondent / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Respondent engaged Applicant for building services / Applicant sought payment for two invoices / First invoice of $19,440.75 was for consulting services / Respondents signed a contract agreeing to fees / Second invoice of $10,627.94 was for justified extras added to contract price / Respondents believed they had already paid second invoice but failed to show sufficient evidence / Respondents counterclaimed for $7,400.00 for incomplete work or work completed incorrectly / Respondent provided work descriptions which the Applicant agreed to pay during the hearing, totalling $1,085.00 / Held: Respondents ordered to pay the Applicant of $28,983.69, subtraction of successful portions of the claim from counterclaim / Claim granted and counter-claim granted in part.

Contract / Applicants booked return international flights with Respondent / Respondent prevented Applicants from departing stated erroneously that they needed visas / Applicants claimed Respondent unjustifiably refused to allow them on international flight / Applicants said resulting delay caused expense, inconvenience and embarrassment / Applicants claimed compensation of $26,352.00 / Held: Respondent not justified in refusing to allow Applicants to board aircraft / Respondent’s incorrect view of Applicants’ documentation meant they experienced considerable inconvenience, stress as well as additional expense / Applicants entitled to compensation but not ten times value of each flight / Compensation enough to recognise inconvenience and stress for an honest mistake / Respondent ordered to pay $3,220.00 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicant provided cleaning services for Respondent / Respondent complained several times about cleaning quality / Applicant obtained a new owner who requested Respondent give their cleaning another chance / Applicant agreed but was still unhappy with the service provided / Respondent terminated Applicant’s contract / Applicant sent invoices which the Respondent refused to pay / Applicant claimed $3,552.12 for unpaid invoices / Held: there was a contract between the parties / Clause requiring three months’ notice to terminate services was unduly harsh and unconscionable / Applicant notified multiple times about sub-par cleaning / Applicant had ample opportunity to rectify the situation, but did not / Respondent did not give any notice before terminating services / Respondent ordered to pay $1,776.06, fifty percent of claimed amount / Claim allowed in part.  

Property / Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 / Applicant claimed water from Respondent's property flows to his property causing flooding and accumulation of mud and debris / Applicant claimed for a solution and not compensation / Held: Disputes Tribunal jurisdiction is limited to matter arising out of contract, damage and loss to property / Tribunal cannot order a person to undertake drainage works or maintenance to own land / Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to make order required by Applicant / Claim struck out.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent to install new shower / Shower continued to leak after attempts to reseal / Applicant engaged another company to fix shower / Applicant claimed their $1,200 payment to Respondent / Held: Respondent did not provide shower installation services with reasonable care and skill / Failure was of substantial character / Applicant entitled to cancel contract and get refund / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,200 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants engaged Respondent to design and supply headstone with glass plaque / After design was fully confirmed and paid for, Respondent informed Applicants glass plaques were not authorised in cemeteries in their city / Respondent had earlier assured it would check local authority requirements to ensure smooth process / Respondent offered substitution, but Applicants claimed this would completely alter design / Applicants claimed $8464 refund and $6,536 for emotional distress / Held: Respondent’s failure to notify Applicants of key information affecting design choice was failure of reasonable care and skill / Applicants entitled to cancel contract and receive refund / Emotional distress is foreseeable consequence of breach of contracts for services related to bereavement / Respondent ordered to pay Applicants $8,464 refund and $500 compensation for inconvenience and distress / Claim allowed.