Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Respondent entered into a contract to have her mare inseminated with frozen semen from Applicant's stallion / Insemination unsuccessful and Respondent refused to pay invoice for services provided / Applicant claimed $2,043.30 in costs / Held: Respondent's mare owned by a horse breeding company / Contract states that companies who are in trade are excluded from implied conditions and warranties set out in the CGA / CGA does not apply / Applicant breached the contract by not putting Respondent's mare in a paddock / Not possible to make a link between failed pregnancy and management of Respondent's mare / Respondent did not suffer a loss as a result of breach / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2,043.30 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Building services / Building Act 2004 / Applicant was head contractor and engaged Respondent as subcontractor for bathroom renovation in 2021 / Work by Respondent was substandard requiring full remediation / Applicant claimed $30,000 from Respondent for remediation costs / Held: Tribunal estopped from reaching finding Respondent’s work was not substandard because of Building Practitioners Board (BPB) decision that work was substandard / Referee relied on BPB decision confirming serious structural defects / Respondent not entitled to remedy due to substantial nature of defects / Applicant entitled to recover reasonable costs / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $30,000 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Property / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant rented a room in Respondents' home / Applicant unhappy with house conditions and cancelled agreement / Applicant claimed full refund of bond and rent paid / Held: Applicant did not demonstrate issues observed amounted to breach of implied terms / Not uncommon for rodents to be present in roof of a property / Audible noise did not render space unfit for habitation nor impact right to quiet enjoyment / Landlord responsibilities under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 did not apply / No implied duty in private contracts / Applicant not entitled to cancel contract / Applicant liable to pay three-day's rent / Applicant ordered to pay Respondents $159.86 / Parties to complete and sign bond form to enable return of $840 bond to Applicant / Claim dismissed.

Insurance / Damages / Respondent accidentally drove through Applicant's fence and collided with rear bumper of Applicant's vehicle / Respondent dissuaded Applicant from making an insurance claim and offered to pay repairs / Applicant unhappy with standard of repair / Applicant claimed $2,498.36 insurance claim for further repair / Held: Respondent liable for collision / Repairs were of poor quality and did not restore Applicant's vehicle to its original state / Cost claim proven / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant's Insurer $2,498.36 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicant bought vehicle from Respondent and paid $9,000 / Vehicle experienced failures within first week of use and is now essentially worthless / Applicant claimed misrepresentation or mistake / Held: where the seller is not a person "in trade", the consumer protection provided by the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993, Fair Trading Act 1986 and the Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003 does not apply / Head gasket failures are almost always the end consequence of a gradual process / No evidence of any symptoms of engine fault up to the point of sale / No misrepresentation or mistake / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Construction / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant awarded sub-contract for electrical work by Respondent for a new build construction / Applicant completed some work outside contract / Respondent requested for further breakdown of variation in contract / Applicant informed contract had been cancelled / Applicant claimed $11,477.12 for lost profit, time spent pricing and claim related costs / Held: oral recollections were the only available evidence / Respondent unable to prove it is more likely than not that Applicant refused to provide further information / Respondent repudiated contract when it informed Applicant work was being awarded to another supplier / No evidence to support costs claimed by Applicant / Applicant awarded 30% of costs claimed / Cost related to tribunals claim not awarded / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $3,823.30 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Applicant installed alarm system at Respondent's bar / Respondent refused to pay Applicant's invoice claiming installation was not authorised / Applicant claimed $262.50 payment for invoice / Held: Applicant were properly engaged by Respondent to investigate why alarm had not been triggered during burglary / Applicant unable to prove it was more likely than not authorised to do extra work to relocate and install a new sensor / Applicant entitled to be paid for investigating the sensor / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $86.25 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Consumer law / Contract and Commercial law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased a pony online from the Respondent for $5,600.00 / Applicant paid $1,426.00 to have the pony freighted to his property / Applicant said it was immediately apparent the pony was not suitable for a child and was a danger to anyone who approaches her /  Applicant claimed the pony’s characteristics were misrepresented / Applicant sought $8,452.00 for purchase price and freight costs / Held: misrepresentation was made in the sale / Advert suggested the pony was docile and child-friendly / Evidence indicated that the pony was sedated prior to delivery / Evidence also indicated that the pony was dangerous / Appropriate for the Applicant to be refunded purchase price of $5,600.00, and transport costs of $1,426.00 / Respondent ordered to pay $7,026.00 to Applicant / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent engaged Applicants to design a house / Contract contained brief for type of house and fixed prices for four design stages / Applicants claimed Respondent agreed to the fifth concept design and they began work on preliminary design / Respondent later cancelled contact, disputed acceptance of concept design and argued preliminary design never occurred / Despite Respondent’s dissatisfaction she paid $1,150 for concept design and $2,242.50 preliminary design when ordered by Tribunal / Tribunal order subsequently quashed when Respondent’s rehearing granted / Applicants claimed $2,242.50 plus interest and costs / Held: Applicants unable to prove Respondent accepted concept design / Email’s meaning ambiguous so open to Respondent to interpret still in concept design stage / Concept designs not fit for purpose as significantly exceeded Respondent’s maximum floor area contained in brief / Respondent entitled to cancel contract and not require…

Consumer law/ Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased seeds from the Respondent / Applicant claimed she was sent the wrong seeds / Applicant sought $30,000.00 in consequential income losses / Held: seeds provided did not match the description provided / Respondent was aware that the Applicant was going to use the seeds on a commercial basis / Reasonable foreseeable that the wrong seeds would affect the Applicant’s business and that the Respondent would be liable / Applicant did not attempt to recuperate losses when she discovered the issue / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2,075.19 / Claim allowed in part.

Insurance / Applicant’s motor vehicle was unlawfully taken by Respondent / Respondent committed driving offences which resulted in damage / Applicant and Applicant’s insurance claim $6,187.06 for insured and uninsured recovery / Held: Damage occurred due to failure to take reasonable care by Respondent / Applicant and Applicant’s insurer have proven loss / Held: Respondent to pay Applicant’s Insurer $6,187.06. 

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Contract and Commercial law Act 2017 / Applicants purchased puppy for $3,500 from Respondent who were breeders / Puppy passed away and Applicants claimed puppy born with medical disorder or had predisposition to seizures / Applicants claimed $30,000 comprised of purchase price, veterinary costs and general damages / Held: on balance of probabilities Respondent did not breach consumer legislation / Insufficient evidence puppy died from medical disorder or born with predisposition / Respondent did not misrepresent puppy’s health, or their return or refund policy / Insufficient evidence misrepresentation induced Applicants into entering contract / Cause of illness unknown / Applicants not entitled to compensation / Claim dismissed.