Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993/ Applicant bought a pony from Respondent / Pony bolted, bucked and exhibited dangerous behaviour contrary to advertisement about being easy to ride / Applicant claims pony not suitable to be ridden by daughter, requests refund of purchase price and to return pony to Respondent / Respondent claims pony as described in advertisement and issues were due to manner Respondent maintained, rode, or fed pony / Held: pony sold in trade therefore subject to guarantees under CGA / Pony not of acceptable quality / Applicant not able to reject pony as outside reasonable time to do so and had been returned to Applicant / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $5320.00 / Applicant may keep or sell pony

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased car from Respondent / Respondent advised there was an issue with the starter / After purchase Applicant noticed additional problems including mileage that was over the advertised amount / Applicant wrote to Respondent listing faults with car / Respondent declined to take car back for a full refund / Held: Respondent “in trade” as supplier for purposes of the CGA / Statutory guarantees and remedies contained in CGA apply to the transaction / Held: nature and number of problems mean car was not free from minor defects even given age and mileage / Condition constitutes breach of acceptable quality under ss 6 and 7 CGA / Held: Applicant met requirement to notify seller of problems and Respondent did not remedy within reasonable time / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay $3020.00 to Applicant

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent performed WOF inspection for Applicant / Applicant sold vehicle / Vehicle wheel bearing seized while Purchaser was driving causing crash / Applicant contends problem must have been evident during WOF / Did Respondent perform service with reasonable care and skill / Held: Respondent supplied service under CGA even though no contract between Respondent and Purchaser / Statutory guarantees contained in CGA apply / Held: Respondent did not perform service with reasonable care and skill / On balance problems would have been noticeable during WOF / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay $1559.24 to Applicant.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Guarantee that goods comply with description /  Failure of substantial character / Respondent engaged Applicant to supply and install kitchen benchtop / Respondent refused to pay balance of contract because no hole for tap in benchtop and it did not correspond with description / Applicant claims $1,750 from Respondent / Applicant claims no room to put hold in benchtop for tap and plan was draft / Held: plan contained description of what to be supplied / Respondent did not approve changes and benchtop did not correspond with description / Failure to match description is of substantial character per s 21(b) CGA as benchtop departs in significant respect from description / Respondent entitled to remedy per s 18 CGA / Held: Respondent entitled to set off of $1,750 against balance of his account / Applicant not entitled to further payment / Claim dismissed.

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Breach of duty of care / Applicant hired Respondent to transport house lot to England / Contract was for one 20 foot container / Goods required extra space resulting in an additional charge of $2471.00 / Applicant claimed for a refund of additional charges based on quote of set fee for the transportation of all goods / Held: quoted price in contact for one 20 foot container only / Contract price based on volume of goods limited to fit inside 20 foot container / Respondent provided service under Consumer Guarantees Act / Held: Respondent in breach of responsibilities under ss 28 and 29 of the CGA for misinformation of volume required to transport goods and that price did not include all goods / Applicant did not cancel contract until after event / Loss limited to incorrect advise, inconvenience and unexpected extra payment / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay $815.43 to Applicant.

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / guarantee of acceptable quality / Applicant purchased a vehicle from a private seller / vehicle originally imported by second Respondent / vehicle used to transport costumes / vehicle’s transmission failed / Applicant claimed cost of repairs to transmission / Held: Vehicle failed to be as durable as a reasonable consumer would have expected / Applicant was a “consumer” under CGA / vehicle ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use or consumption / vehicle not used in an unreasonable manner or to an unreasonable extent / second Respondent as an importer came within the definition of “manufacturer” under CGA / consumer not required to give manufacturer an opportunity to remedy fault unless it is covered by a contractual warranty / cost of repairing transmission reasonably foreseeable / Respondents jointly liable to pay Applicant $3,978.09.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA), ss 32 and 43 / Applicant left car at Respondent’s airport parking facility / employee damaged car while moving it / damage repaired at a cost of $2,275.16 by Applicant’s insurer / Applicant and Applicant’s insurer claim for that amount / Held: Applicant meets definition of consumer under CGA / Respondent’s terms and conditions do not exclude liability as employee was driving the car and Respondent cannot contract out of CGA, under s 43 / driving is an integral part of Respondent’s service and crashing the car is a failure of reasonable care and skill except in extraordinary circumstances / evidence not able to establish any extraordinary circumstances / Applicants entitled to remedy under s 32, CGA / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2,275.16

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…

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant purchased type A factory bike from original owner / Respondent was the licensed importer / dirt found in the motorcycle’s airbox caused serious damage to the engine / Applicant repaired the bike himself and claimed for his losses / Held: motorbike not of acceptable quality / inadequate airbox filter system compromised bike’s durability / Respondent considered manufacturer / Applicant able to claim against manufacturer for losses relating to engine failure / Applicant not required by CGA to send bike to Respondent for examination  / Applicant unable to profit from engine failure / amount of losses not changed for betterment or loss of value / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $8,318.08 and to arrange for collection of damaged engine from Applicant at own cost.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant was contracted to provide plumbing services to Respondent’s bathroom on behalf of Respondent’s insurance company / Respondent decided to alter vanity area which was beyond the scope of remedial work being completed / Applicant claimed $2,376.07 for work completed / Held: Respondent liable to pay the amounts claimed / insufficient evidence to establish amount claimed for the work was not reasonable / collection, service and filing fee costs can be claimed only where they are allowed for in contract / Applicant’s claim that Respondent signed job authorisation form not made out / Respondent’s position caused considerable delay in payment / appropriate for 27 months’ interest at 5% per annum to be awarded / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,727.98.

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent engaged Applicant to carry out painting at a rental property / there was conversation about work to be done but nothing recorded in writing / parties have quite different accounts about what the extent of work was for the agreed price / Held: price charged by Applicant is reasonable for the amount of work done / even if Respondent thought other areas were included the price provided by Applicant was only for work they say it was and work that was actually done / Respondent liable to pay invoiced amount / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4,945.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent as property manager and agent for her rental property / problems developed with the tenant and a 90 days’ notice was issued but Respondent overlooked expiry of that notice and allowed the tenant to remain in the property / Applicant claimed $2,626.95 compensation / Held: do not accept it would protect Respondent if Applicant does not receive rent or property damage occurs by Respondent not performing its obligations under the contract / if Respondent had enforced the termination notice rental loss would not have been incurred / Respondent was not providing its services with reasonable care and skill causing additional loss to Applicant / additional costs claimed by Applicant would have been incurred by Applicant in any event and for her account / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $436.19.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant purchased computer from Respondent / computer failed 4 times within 8 weeks / Respondent admits responsibility for one failure, but submits other failures caused by Applicant / Applicant seeks to cancel contract and receive refund of $610.00, including $52.17 for data transfer / Respondent willing to repair computer at no cost, but not to provide refund / while CGA states supplier must be given opportunity to repair goods, the test is reasonableness / 4 failures in 8 weeks renders computer’s failures of a substantial character / Applicant entitled under CGA to reject goods, request refund / entitled to refund of data transfer as of no value without computer / Respondent’s evidence that Applicant’s use caused failures generally, unclear / Respondent liable in terms of its contract and under CGA to refund Applicant / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $610.00