You can search by selecting a jurisdiction, a keyword (for example a name) or browse by year. Identifying details have been removed.

Some decisions in this section have had minor editorial changes applied, that have no effect on the outcome.

Search results for consumer consequential.

5 items matching your search terms

  1. HLL Ltd v RO [2018] NZDT 1133 (6 July 2018) [PDF, 88 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant carried out roofing work on building owned by Respondent / Respondent sought compensation for poor workmanship and damage to building / Applicant counterclaimed for amount outstanding / whether roofing work carried out with reasonable care and skill under s28 / whether failures substantial & if so, how much was owed under contract / Held: work did not comply with s28 as it was undertaken in a storm & was not completed to an adequate standard / failures substantial & resonable consumer test met / Respondent entitled to refund of labour & contribution to consequential loss / Applicant enitled to payment towards sums expended on material / Respondent ordered to pay $6,504.12 to Applicant / claim allowed

  2. DZ v VA, VAV Ltd & VAVU Ltd [2016] NZDT 921 (9 June 2016) [PDF, 86 KB]

    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.

  3. DI v VR Ltd [2015] NZDT 865 (10 December 2015) [PDF, 126 KB]

    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...

  4. FB v TY & TYY [2015] NZDT 1049 (10 December 2015) [PDF, 159 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant purchased truck cab and chassis from first Respondent which included mechanical breakdown insurance (MBI) / first Respondent not authorised by second Respondent (insurer) to issue MBI for that type of vehicle / insurer cancelled insurance policy and refunded premium / ABS control unit failed and was replaced / Applicant previously brought a claim against first Respondent in Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal (MVDT) / Applicant claimed damages against first and second respondent  for breach of CGA and loss of cover / Held: matter should not be relitigated / issues in dispute in earlier proceedings between same parties cannot be the subject of proceedings in the Tribunal / issues raised in MVDT proceedings essentially the same / first Respondent had apparent authority to act on insurer’s behalf and approve insurance / first Respondent failed to take adequate care in supplying MBI services and provide MBI policy fit for Applicant’s purpose / ins...

  5. BH v YH Ltd [2015] NZDT 757 (24 April 2015) [PDF, 72 KB]

    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.

You can try using these keywords to search the whole site.