Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

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.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / guarantee as to reasonable care and skill / Second Respondent operates a mortgage and insurance broking business and arranged contents insurance for First Applicant who had two properties / extreme weather event flooded Property A damaging most of First Applicant’s belongings / insurer declined cover because policy was only for Property B / Applicants claimed that they were wrongly informed that both properties were covered and cancelled existing insurance in reliance on this advice / Held: there can be no claim against First Respondent as it is a separate legal entity from Second Respondent and thus no legal relationship existed / Second Respondent’s evidence inconsistent with statement in his email therefore found to have told First Applicant that contents would be covered at both properties / Second Respondent breached guarantee as to reasonable care and skill under Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / claim allowed, Second Respondent ordered to p…

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicants purchased furniture sold by Respondent company / Applicants did not receive full furniture setting / Applicants claim that contract be cancelled as well as a refund of the purchase price / Held: not reasonable for owner to assume customers were aware that furniture pieces could be sold separately without specifically discussing it or marking it clearly on the price tag / owner of company failed to ensure that customers’ intentions were clear and that he would be able to provide them with the exact product ordered / Respondent breached guarantee under s 10 CGA (goods supplied by reference to a sample or demonstration model must correspond with sample or demonstration model) / Respondent failed to remedy defect with the sale and purchase of the furniture within a reasonable period of time / therefore, Applicants entitled to cancel the contract and obtain a full refund of the purchase price / strike out / respondent company is the…

Contract / Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) and Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / after viewing a cast glass sculpture, Applicants agreed to purchase it from a gallery owned by First Respondent /  Applicants were surprised by different appearance of the piece on delivery / Applicants claimed cancellation of the contract / Held: the sculpture delivered to Applicants was the same one they saw in the gallery / light has significant effect on visual characteristics of glass sculpture / First Respondent did not display piece in misleading way thus no breach of s 10 of FTA / subjective disagreement as to whether bubbles in piece are a defect therefore not proven on objective basis that it was not of “acceptably quality” defined in s 7 of CGA/ no breach of s 28 of CGA as First Respondent could not be reasonably expected to know particular aesthetic concerns of customers / unreasonable burden to impose duty on seller to show a piece or explain how it may look in a range of different circumstance…

Contract / Misleading representation / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicant provided “garden quote” by email to Respondent for landscaping and garden work / Applicant then said he forgot to include GST in “garden quote” and increased total cost / work began and included additional work with no discussion as to price of new work / Respondent was told project was on budget but on final day was told it was little over budget / Respondent refused to pay as invoice exceeded agreed amount / Tribunal finds that “garden quote” was an estimate not quote as it lacked specificity / this estimate was GST exclusive as Respondent was put on notice and agreed to continue work / Applicant was entitled to exceed estimates in email but by no greater than 20 per cent / Applicant was entitled to charge no more than reasonable price for the additional work not included in estimate under s 31 Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant’s assurance amounted to misleading representation and breached s 13(g) of Fair…

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / guarantees as to acceptable quality and fitness for purpose / Applicant purchased a pair of basketball shoes made by a major shoe manufacturer / claimed the pull tab on the shoe had agitated his ankle and caused bleeding / sought refund on the basis that the shoes were not reasonably fit for the purpose for which the supplier represented they would be fit under s 8(1)(b) / Applicant made his own shoe selection and did not rely on the Respondent’s staff’s expertise / Respondent produced evidence showing this and a similar style of shoe had been sold in New Zealand without complaint / evidence from podiatrist suggesting Applicant was not wearing correct socks for his foot size / held that the Applicant’s injury was likely to be a case of needing to “wear in the shoes” and blisters are not uncommon with new shoes / claim dismissed.

Jurisdiction / Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 / Applicant purchased new motor vehicle from Respondent / automatic transmission failed / Applicant claimed for the cost of repair as vehicle was not of “acceptable quality” under the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Held: Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with claims under the CGA against motor vehicle traders / claim more properly determined there with the assistance of a specialist assessor / claim transferred to Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal.