Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Warranty / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Building Act 2004 / Applicants bought a retractable roof pergola from the Respondents / Applicants are concerned that the way the pergola has been attached to their home is structurally unsound / Applicants also concerned that the height of the pergola at one end does not meet their specifications / Applicants bring a claim against Respondents for a refund of their deposit, costs of removing the pergola and a declaration of non-liability for the balance owed / Held: Pergola not fit for purpose / Defect is of a substantial character / Applicants entitled to consequential losses / Claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $18,422.44.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased motorhome from Respondent / Motorhome would not engage gears while travelling and required repairs / Applicant claimed repair and towing costs / Held: evidence showed premature failure of parts in transmission of motorhome / Respondent had opportunity to repair motorhome when notified but failed to be involved / Applicant entitled to all repair costs and consequential loss / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $22,257.95 / Claim allowed.

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant bought spa pool from Respondent / Spa pool leaking / Applicant wants to return spa pool to Respondent / Applicant claims full refund $12,000 and additional $1,000 for consequential costs relating to leak / Held: spa pool not of acceptable quality and defect not remedied within reasonable time / Respondent ordered to refund $12,000 to Applicant and collect spa pool at Respondent's expense / Consequential costs of $1,000 not granted as no evidence provided / Claim allowed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased outboard motor from Respondent / Cable throttle broke after a few months / Respondent denied liability / Applicant claimed motor not of acceptable quality / Applicant claimed $804.00, being a full refund plus $400.00 for damage to dinghy / Held: motor not of acceptable quality / Materials not suitable for salt-water use / Respondent failed to take reasonable action to ensure supply of replacement parts / Respondent to pay Applicant $404.00, being a full refund / Applicant did not provide enough evidence to prove consequential loss / Claim granted.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant purchased washing machine from First Respondent / Washing machine broke down within short period / Applicant approached First Respondent who put them in contact with Second Respondent / Second Respondent took away washing machine and refunded some of purchase price / Refund delayed for some time / Applicant was without a washing machine and had to make numerous trips to laundrette / During Covid-19 restrictions Applicant was unable to access laundrette / Applicant went to First Respondent numerous times for resolution / Applicant claimed breach of guarantee of acceptable quality under CGA / Applicant claimed damages for refund or replacement, consequential financial losses and consequential losses in form of emotional harm / Applicant claimed $30,000 to be paid equally by the Respondents / Held: breach of guarantee of acceptable quality / First Respondent to pay Applicant $119.00 refund / Emotional harm damages cannot be claimed…

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant purchased washing machine from Respondent / washing machine failed when the tip of a drawstring on a pair of shorts was torn off and damaged inner plastic drum / Did washing machine meet guarantees of acceptable quality pursuant to CGA / Did Respondent comply with obligations pursuant to CGA / Is Applicant entitled to refund and damages for consequential losses / Held: washing machine does not comply with CGA guarantees of acceptable quality / no evidence Applicant misused washing machine / washing machines should be able to cope with common type of clothing / Held: Respondent failed to comply with CGA obligations / Respondent failed to address Applicant’s complaint sufficiently or timely / Respondent responded late and blamed Applicant for failure / Held: Respondent to pay Applicant $1,715.00 being refund of purchase price plus consequential damages / Held: Respondent to collect washing machine or pay Applicant additional $250.…

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased kitset wood fired hot tub from Respondent / Applicant unable to assemble it / Applicant engaged another party to assemble it but it leaked / Respondent argued Applicant allowed the wooden components to get wet and that was why it leaked / Whether tub was of acceptable quality and fit for purpose / What remedy was available to the Applicant / Held: tub was not of acceptable quality and not fit for purpose / Assembly instructions were poor / No warning on instructions about wood getting damp / Applicant entitled to consequential losses as a result of failure of the tub/ Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4,148.00

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant brought shed/cabin from Respondent / If cabin is weathertight and if there was mould in the interior / Applicant claims a refund for cabin and consequential losses, including third party installation costs and damage to belongings / Applicant also claims for amount spent on wiring the cabin / Held: the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 applies / Cabin did not correspond with description provided by Respondent / Fact that cabin was not weather proof and water tight is a failure of substantial character / Applicant entitled to reject cabin, obtain full refund and damages for reasonably foreseeable further losses / Portion of cost spent on wiring allowed / Claim allowed

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 / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / guarantee of reasonable care and skill / Applicant brought velvet boots to Respondent for resoling / when returned, Applicant noticed each boot was damaged and notified Respondent / Respondent undertook repair but left boots in worse state / Applicant claims refund for re-soling, at $35, and cost of replacement boots, at $700, plus Tribunal filing fee / Held: Respondent breached CGA guarantee of providing service with reasonable care and skill as damage was caused during course of service provided / Applicant entitled to statutory remedies / s 32(b) and (c), CGA / Applicant entitled to reduction in value of service due to failure below price paid and any reasonably foreseeable consequential losses / reduction in value of service is its entire value of $35 due to serious nature of damage / given extent of damage, only remedy available is replacement of boots / Tribunal filing fee cannot be awarded / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay…

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a bike online from Respondent which developed fault / stand-off between parties as to who should pay for freight to return bike to Respondent / Applicant eventually sent the bike to Respondent which discovered and repaired minor wiring fault / Applicant claimed $1,790.96 for refund of the bike, courier costs and compensation / Held: Applicant did not give Respondent opportunity to examine the bike and to repair and therefore did not have right to reject the bike / bike failed to meet guarantee of acceptable quality and Applicant is entitled to freight cost as it is cost reasonably foreseeable / Respondent liable for cost of freighting bike back to Applicant / Applicant’s claims for other consequential losses dismissed / supplier cannot contract out of Consumer Guarantees Act / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to freight bike back to Applicant and pay $90.