Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Negligence / car collision / Applicant and Respondent had a side-on collision as Respondent changed lanes to the left, then came back to the right, colliding with Applicant’s vehicle / Held: Respondent fully moved into left lane as damage to Applicant’s car extends the entire left side which is not possible to occur if both vehicles are partially occupying same lane / Respondent liable in negligence for damage to Applicant’s car as did not ensure it was safe to change lanes back to the right / Applicant did not contribute to the impact / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4,606.35 for repair and rental car costs

Contract / sale and purchase of business / while restaurant equipment included on chattels list, equipment required to run restaurant not included / Applicant’s claim reduced to maximum amount claimable in Tribunal for one year’s hire of equipment not provided / Respondent counterclaimed for unpaid balance of stock-in-trade / Held: Respondent breached contract by failing to include all assets used to run business / while Applicant required to check and approve equipment, Applicant did not fail to perform due diligence / Applicant’s claim not challenged, Respondent’s counterclaim payable / claim and counter-claim allowed, Respondent to pay Applicant $12,522.69

Negligence / car collision / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, r 7.2 / Applicant’s insurance company claimed against Respondent for repairs / HELD: Respondent created hazard and caused the collision by opening car door / therefore, Tribunal found Respondent was negligent having breached duty of care owed to Applicant / repair costs quoted and actual repairs undertaken consistent with damage / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay insurance company $1,708.72

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent to replace existing grout in shower / nickel shower drain was scratched and first grout failed / Respondent removed and replaced it / second scratch made / Respondent denied fault for scratch / Applicant claimed $6000 for full replacement of shower drain and regrouting, and claimed remedial work was inadequate / Held: both scratches caused by Respondent / scratches constitute a failure of reasonable care and skill / insufficient evidence to show remedial work was not of acceptable quality / it is appropriate for another supplier to replace the shower drain / another grouting job will also be required / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $600.00.

Contract / Applicant wanted to purchase a car from Respondent to convert to taxi / parties made written and verbal agreements that Respondents would fix some issues with the car and Applicant would purchase it for $21,000 / Respondents would repay $1,000 deposit if car could not be converted / Applicant asked more questions about car after agreement made, was not satisfied with answers and sent an email to cancel order / Applicant claims for refund of deposit / Held: conditional contract was formed when deposit was paid and handwritten document was signed / Applicant was only entitled to cancel contract if conditions recorded on written agreement were not met / Applicant breached contract by invalid cancellation / deposit only refundable if contract terms not met / Respondent entitled to retain deposit / claim dismissed .

Contract / disagreement over invoice cost / Applicant hired Respondent to install hot water cylinder and change pipes to a high-pressure system / Respondent sent invoice for $1,298.20 / Applicant did not pay and seeks declaration that he is only liable to pay $700 / Held: law of contact provides for a party to pay for services performed under contract / Applicant liable to pay Respondent’s invoice in full / Respondent performed service Applicant contracted them to perform / Applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to prove invoice not justified / claim dismissed, Applicant to pay full invoice of $1,298.20 to Respondent

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased truck cab and chassis from respondent / Purchase included mechanical breakdown insurance / Respondent not authorised by Second Respondent to issue mechanical breakdown insurance for vehicles over 6,000kg / Vehicle’s ABS control unit failed and replaced at cost of $3,474.60 / Applicant claims $1,479.60 against Respondent and Second Respondent for breach of the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Held: the Respondent through their agent the Second Respondent failed to take adequate care / No consequential loss / Claim dismissed

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…

Bailment / Applicant left car in Respondent’s workshop overnight / the workshop burnt down and Applicant’s car was damaged / Applicant claimed Respondent was liable to repair the car / Held: Respondent not at fault and damage occurred despite taking all reasonable precautions / evidence shows the cause of the fire was through arson / Respondent’s non-replacement of the workshop security cameras after having been stolen a week earlier not sufficient for finding fault for the fire / Applicant could have arranged insurance cover on the car to guard against this type of risk / claim dismissed.

Negligence / car collision / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, r 5.9 / Applicant and Respondent not insured / Applicant claimed costs for his car that was written off and transport costs / HELD: Respondent failed to stop his vehicle / therefore, Tribunal found Respondent was negligent having breached duty of care owed to Applicant / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2,350 being the pre-accident value of car fixed by Tribunal / no evidence produced as to transport costs

Negligence / Applicant involved in car crash / applicant claimed crash caused by fuel spill & respondents responsible for not blocking road & cleaning it up promptly / alleged further damage caused to car when unloading it from respondent’s tow truck / applicant claimed damages  for damage to car, consequential losses & costs / whether respondents negligent, & if so , what sum payable / Held: respondents had a duty of care to take adequate precautions to prevent damage to other vehicles & respond promptly / no evidence respondent did not respond promptly / response time reasonable in the circumstances / resondents not lible for applicant’s crash / insufficient evidence respondent negligent in handling vehicle causing further damage / claim dismissed

Contract / misrepresentation / Contractual Remedies Act 1979, section 6 / Applicant purchased horse for granddaughter after seeing advertisement on Trade Me / private sale / granddaughter inspected horse and rode on him on three occasions over a two-month period / Applicant claimed that Respondent did not inform her of horse’s complications, behavioural problems and that horse is unsafe / Held: onus on Applicant to establish horse was misrepresented, that Applicant induced to enter contract based on misrepresentation and that Applicant suffered damage as a result / no persuasive evidence that Respondent misrepresented horse / claim dismissed

Negligence / Breach of duty of care / Applicant and Respondent were drivers in a motor vehicle collision / Respondent’s vehicle crossed the centre line, crashing into Applicant’s oncoming vehicle / Serious Crash Unit report found the collision was caused by the separation of the left rear wheel from the Applicant’s vehicle, leading to loss of control of the vehicle / Applicant changed the wheel 7 days before the crash, report suggested wheel was over-torqued causing its sudden separation / Applicant claims $13,444.10 for the damage to their vehicle / Held: Respondent entitled to expect the professional who repaired the tyre to check replacement tyre on vehicle / Separation of the wheel was not caused by a lack of care, Respondent not responsible for the collision / claim dismissed.