Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent engaged Applicant to attend to faulty hot water cylinder / Applicant attended site and conducted tests / Applicant requested invoice payment before carrying out further work / Respondent declined payment and found another electrician / Applicant claimed payment of invoice / Held: Applicant engaged to address hot water issues / Applicant obligated to pay particular attention to safety and diagnose issue accurately / Applicant carried work with reasonable care and skill even if it did not fix the problem / Respondent liable to pay Applicant $308.04 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant agreed to buy vehicle from Respondent upon condition that dash would be converted to full English version / Offer subject to a final technical checkout by Applicant / Applicant claimed conditions had not been met and claimed deposit refund / Held: full conversion of dash with a GPS and NZ map was an essential term of the contract / Respondent repudiated contract when he did not intend to complete the performance of that obligation / Applicant entitled to cancel contract / Applicant entitled to return of his deposit / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $500 / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a cooktop produced by Respondent / Two years later Applicant noticed rust, discolouration and a smell from the cooktop / Applicant raised issue with Respondent and a service visit was arranged / Respondent’s technician report indicated the stains were due to excessive oil spillage and provided cleaning suggestions / Applicant sought $3,299.01 refund for cooktop / Held: cooktop found to be of acceptable quality / Accepted that there had been discolouration and a smell from the cooktop / Discolouration and smell considered to be caused by user error and neglect of product / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Respondent engaged Applicant in repairing horse float to make it roadworthy / Applicant gave Respondent verbal estimate for job of $3000 / When Respondent came to collect float Applicant gave invoice showing Respondent owed $10,034.53 / Parties disagreed on amount owing for repair of float / Applicant sought $1,500 for payment / Held: price Respondent gave Applicant was $3000 / Respondent was entitled to hold price that was originally quoted of $3000 / Claim dismissed.

Property law / Fencing Act 1978 / Applicant and Respondents owned adjoining rural properties / Boundary fence between properties had sustained damage and required repairs / Parties agreed Applicant would provide materials for repair and Respondents would undertake the repairs / Due to delays, Applicant felt it was necessary to hire a contractor to complete the work / Applicant claimed $3,783.48 for half the cost of the contractor  / Held: agreement between parties ended when Applicant engaged a contractor without proper notice to the Respondents / Proper notice under the Fencing Act 1978 was not given therefore Respondent had no obligation to contribute towards costs / Claim dismissed.

Building contracts / Negligence / Building Act 2004 / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants entered residential building contract with Respondent for construction of a house / First Respondent subcontracted driveway and path construction to Second Respondent / Applicants noticed issues with concrete upon moving in / Independent report commissioned by First Respondent found issues with driveway and path / Applicants claimed $30,000 for cost of replacing driveway and path / First Respondent counterclaimed a contribution of $20,000 from Second Respondent / Held: driveway, path and slab did not meet statutory warrants implied in residential building contracts / Respondents accepted  that statutory warranties not met and replacements for driveway, path and slab required / Respondents not liable for replacement cost of vehicle crossing as issues were largely aesthetic but liable for cost of lost amenity in respect of the crossing / Second Respondent liable to Applicants in negligence for…

Contract / Applicant engaged Respondent to store shipping container with his possessions inside / Applicant believed he owned container and was only paying for container to be stored / Contract between parties was a rental contract showing Respondent was owner of all rights over the equipment (including the container) / Respondent repossessed container after non-payment of fees by Applicant and refused to release container to Applicant on request / Applicant initially claimed $2000 but amended claim to seek return of container and possessions / Held: likely that Respondent owns container / Respondents provided documents showing it had purchased container from third party with same unique identifier as one used by Applicant / Respondent provided invoices it had sent to Applicant with the relevant unique identifier / Applicant could not provide evidence to support claim of ownership of container with the relevant unique identifier nor other containers held by Respondent / Claim dismissed…

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant entered 12-month contract with Respondent for high-speed internet services / Since commencing service, broadband speed achieved was considerably less than advertised / Applicant raised issues with Respondent but no solution was provided / Applicant decided to switch providers / Respondent charged $99 for notice period requirement and $99 early exit fee / Applicant claimed $198 for charges plus reimbursement of 50% of monthly charge for the six months the contract ran, being $300 / Held: speed of service was an essential term of the contract / As Respondent did not provide agreed speed, Applicant entitled to cancel contract / Applicant not liable for notice period and early exit charges / Reasonable that Applicant pay price for service commensurate with service received, in this case half the contract price / Applicant entitled to $300 compensation claimed / Respondent ordered to pay $498 / Claim allowed.

Nuisance / Property / Applicants owned a property at the lowest point in a series of neighbouring commercial properties including those owned by Respondents / The properties had easement for rights of way / Applicants alleged stormwater from Respondents’ properties flowed onto their property, causing damage to their driveway and building / Applicants claimed that Respondents allowed water pooling and overflow, leading to significant damage / Applicants claimed $30,000 to remediate the damage caused by the stormwater / Held: Applicant did not prove damage was solely caused by Respondents / Water from multiple properties and public use of the right of way contributed to the damage / Claim dismissed.

Property / Parties own cross-leased properties / Applicant sought Respondent's permission for significant changes to his property / Respondent opposed proposed alterations / Applicant incurred costs and claimed payment from Respondent / Held: it was Applicant's choice to obtain plans / Respondent not liable to reimburse Applicant's expenses / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Property / Applicant purchased house from Respondent / Applicant found lights did not work in rainy weather and also incomplete earthquake repairs / Applicant and agent had problems with lights at viewings for property prior to settlement / Applicant found original floors present and peeling paint from windows, soffits and fascia boards / Chimney was not repaired / Only two of three EQC scopes of repair for property were available to purchasers / Third EQC scope allowed for removal and replacement of floors, painting on soffits and fascias, removal of chimney and associated repairs / Applicant was quoted $19,000 for repairs / Applicant claimed for costs to remedy issues with property / Held: failure of lights was breach by Respondent of warranty in agreement that utility or amenity systems for property were in good working order / Failure to disclose third EQC scope was misrepresentation by Respondent about status of earthquake repairs / Applicant's understanding that Respon…

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant hired First Respondent to asphalt around Applicant's new home and driveway / Applicant unhappy with service and remedial work provided by First Respondent as driveway was continuing to deteriorate / Applicant concerned about asphalt in driveway / Applicant also concerned that asphalt product itself was not durable / Respondents caused denting and abrasive damage to Applicant's fence / Respondents said Applicant had unreasonable and unjustified expectations about asphalt and driveway surface / Held: Respondents breached reasonable care and skill guarantee by damaging Applicant's fence during their work and issues with neatness of asphalt compacting and edging / Insufficient evidence to show breach of reasonable care and skill in respect of whole asphalt job as reasonable care and skill not a standard of perfection / Applicant unable to prove breach by gradient and join issues with asphalt as was still reasonable in terms of care an…

Negligence / Government Roading Powers Act 1989 / Applicant held maintenance contract to maintain motorways and repair any damage / Respondent crashed into the wire rope barrier on a motorway causing $43,274.05 worth of damage / Applicant reduced claim to fit within the $30,000.00 limit of the tribunal / Held: on the balance of probability, Respondent was liable for the damage and the remedial cost as claimed / Respondent ordered pay Applicant $30,000.00 / Claim allowed.