Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contracts Enforcement Act 1956 / Applicant a debt collection agency  which claimed Respondent signed a personal guarantee for debts owing to one of its companies / Applicant’s company in liquidation so debt assigned to Applicant / whether guarantee enforceable & if not, whether Tribunal can & should rectify it / Held: customer update form signed by Respondent unenforceable as it did not identify principal debtor, or only identified one that was no longer in existence / Tribunal has jurisdiction to rectify defective guarantee but Tribunal should not exercise discretion due to significant delay in filing claim / other factors preventing exercise of discretion included Applicant’s acceptance of assignment & failure to bring evidence of it & carelessness of using defective form / Tribunal declined to make order that guarantee be rectified / claim dismissed.

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.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a hover mower from Respondent / mower ran unevenly and was difficult to start so Applicant returned it for repairs / after receiving it back it ran no better and was returned again / 6-8 weeks later when Respondent attempted to return the mower Applicant rejected it and requested a full refund / Applicant claimed for repairs to their old mower, purchase price of the hover mower and the filing fee / Held: mower is not of acceptable quality / ongoing problems with starting and running that are intermittent / supported by evidence from a lawnmower shop owner who inspected the mower / issues and length of time they occurred mean the failures are of a substantial character / Applicant entitled to reject the mower under the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 and entitled to full refund but not repair costs (of old mower) or filing fee / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $988.

Contract / Applicant submitted a quote to Respondent to lay 50 m² of timber / quote accepted / area was in fact 90 m² / Applicant advised Respondent’s project manager that the job would require additional labour and materials / advised to proceed and that the matter would be sorted out later / Applicant decided to not charge for additional glue as goodwill gesture / Applicant submitted invoices / accounts not paid / Applicant decided to charge for glue / claim for cost of glue, $1,265.00, and filing fee / held that it was Respondent’s mistake in thinking the area was only 50 m² and needed to make it clear to Applicant that it would not pay for additional labour and materials / failed to inform Applicant before he started work / Applicant went ahead with work with reasonable belief he would be paid / Applicant entitled to charge for additional glue as the goodwill gesture was contingent on prompt payment of accounts / Applicant entitled to charge for glue / Respondent to pay $1,265.00 t…

Jurisdiction / quasi-contract / Respondent a former employee of Applicant / Applicant overpaid Respondent $380.98 in his final pay / Respondent claims he can retain the overpayment pursuant to the Wages Protection Act 1983 / Applicant claims $380.98 plus filing fee from the Respondent / issue as to jurisdiction / Tribunal has jurisdiction under quasi-contract to hear claim / Employment Relations Authority does not have exclusive jurisdiction to determine matters of overpayment to an employee after employment terminated / claim not founded in contract and Respondent has not breached a contract / quasi-contract / person liable to make restitution when unduly enriched / Respondent received money he was not entitled to through Applicant’s error / no legal reason justifying non-repayment / WPA does not apply as Applicant not seeking to deduct overpayment from future wages / Respondent not entitled to the money and has been unduly enriched by Applicant’s error / unjust for Respondent to reta…