Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a freezer from Respondent / Two years and eight months later the freezer failed, resulting in its contents being spoiled / Technician advised freezer had a gas leak and was not worth repairing / Respondent offered to replace freezer, however Applicant declined the offer and requested a refund / Applicant brought claim to recover price paid plus cost of contaminated food / Held: a consumer would expect a freezer to last longer than 2 years and 8 months, regardless of price / Freezer failed to comply with guarantee of acceptable quality / Failure was substantial / Applicant entitled to cancel contract and obtain full refund of $399 / Loss of food stored in freezer was reasonably foreseeable loss / Respondent liable for loss of $200 / Respondent had already paid Applicant $599 in accordance with earlier Disputes Tribunal order, therefore no further payment required / Claim allowed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act / Breach of Contract / Respondent and Applicant entered agreement for sale of relocatable villa / Parties agreed deposit would be paid immediately and the balance at a later date / Respondent signed contract prepared by Applicant which Respondent did not realise had different date for final payment than agreed / Dispute arose about date of settlement / Respondent did not proceed with purchase / Applicant claimed for balance of purchase price / Respondent counterclaimed for return of deposit / Held - Respondent breached contract by choosing to not proceed with purchase / Respondent not liable to pay balance as steps available to mitigate their loss were not taken by Respondent and their insistence on earlier settlement date was unjustified / Applicant not entitled to refund of deposit as her breach of contract had caused loss to Respondent / Claim dismissed / Counterclaim dismissed.

Negligence / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicants made a payment of $5,300.00 after receiving an invoice receipt, which they believed to be from the Respondent / Applicants subsequently discovered that the email and related invoice were a scam / The deposit was not paid to the Respondent but to a bank account of the scammer / Applicants sought an order for the refund of the deposit from the Respondent / Held:  Applicants can make a claim pursuant to the CGA / Respondent did not exercise reasonable skill and care, as they did not have adequate cyber security protections / Respondent must repay the deposit ($5,300.00) to the Applicants / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Applicant was cycling when he hit the opening driver’s door of Respondent’s parked car / Applicant and his insurer claimed $2239.20 for a replacement bike / Respondent alleged it was not his fault and that the Applicant should have left enough space so that he didn’t hit his car door / Respondent counterclaimed $1880.83 / Held: Respondent breached his duty of care to not cause a hazard by opening the door of his vehicle / It would be prudent for Applicant to take account of safe riding guides, but they were not legally binding / Applicant was only required to ride at a certain speed below the speed limit and to be able to stop if a pedestrian crossed the crossing / No evidence Applicant was breaching speed limit / Applicant did not contribute to or cause the collision / Respondent was at fault for collision / Claim allowed and counterclaim dismissed.

Tort / Trespass / Applicants purchased property with sign advertising business associated with Respondent / Respondent's employees cut sign down / Sign was on Applicants land and Applicants' had intended their own use of sign / Respondents believed sign was on their land and was their sign / Applicants claimed damages for trespass / Held: the sign belonged to Applicants and Respondents committed trespass on the Applicants' land and on sign by negligently and wrongfully interfering with it without Applicant's permission / Applicants would receive betterment by receiving a new replacement sign / Respondent ordered to pay $10,761.14 / Claim allowed in part.

Consumer / Consumer Guarantees Act / Respondents issued Applicant with a parking infringement notice and fine / Notice and fine were waived but Applicant alleges respondent's appeal system is unsatisfactory / Applicant claims costs for the time and inconvenience of having to deal with the infringement and appeal system / Held - Respondents provided services with reasonable care and skill / Applicant's evidence was also insufficient to show bad faith by respondents / No basis for award of compensation / Claim dismissed.

Disputes-Tribunal-Advertisement-Wellington.pdf

Disputes-Tribunal-Advertisement-Invercargill

Consumer law / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017/ Applicant purchased a camera system from the Respondent online for $499/ System was misdescribed by the Respondent as a more expensive NVR system with cabling / Applicant was also referred to another listing for a more expensive NVR system as “the same system” and the photos included were for an NVR system with cabling / Applicant was looking to buy a cabled NVR system / Applicant received a system that was not a cabled system / Held: ambiguous and misleading wording and photos, while perhaps inadvertent by the Respondent, amounted to a breach of the implied condition / System received by Applicant was less expensive than the one purchased / Appropriate damages were equivalent to the purchase price / Respondent ordered to pay $499 / Claim allowed.

Insurance / Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 / Applicant purchased travel insurance from Respondent / Applicant lost hearing aid on overseas trip / Applicant's claim for replacement value of hearing aid was initially declined although later accepted for amount lower than Applicant claimed / Applicant accepted policy document limits hearing aid claim amount / Applicant asked Tribunal to decide if Respondent should make further payment as he had relied on table earlier in policy document that does not indicate limit / Held: threshold not reached to show it is more than likely justice of case warrants intervention under Disputes Tribunal Act / Applicant bears consequences of not taking more time to have policy explained or how cover and limits applied / Claim dismissed.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     …

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA) / Applicant contracted Respondent to move her household goods for $1,710.00 / On the day of the move, a dispute arose regarding the manner in which the Applicant’s goods were handled / Police attempted to mediate the situation, and it was suggested that the Applicant pay only half of the contract price as a settlement / Respondent subsequently invoiced the Applicant for $850.00, which the Applicant paid / Applicant sought $18,642.00 from the Respondent for damages caused to the goods / Held: Respondent complied with the requirements set out in the Act / Claim was threfore statutorily barred / Applicant failed to prove her claim / Matter was settled with accepted discount / Substantive evidence was not obtained until months after the removal / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Building / Respondents contracted Applicant to build to two houses on Respondent's property / Disagreements at completion of building led to settlement agreement which required Respondents to pay $17,000.00 to Applicant to settle all claims / Respondents refused to pay agreed sum / Applicant claimed $17,000.00 for breach of contract / Respondents counterclaimed $25,000.00 for disagreements with Applicant and building work, delays in build / Respondents said they were blackmailed by Applicant's lawyer to sign agreement and it was not legally binding / Held: agreement was legally binding and required Respondents to pay $17,000.00 to Applicant / Respondents breached contract by refusing to pay agreed sum / Respondents ordered to pay $17,000.00 to Applicants / Agreement was full and final settlement so Respondents cannot claim against Applicants / Claim allowed and counterclaim dismissed.  

Contract / Loan / Applicant’ son was in a long-term relationship with Respondent  / Couple separated in 2022 / In 2020, Applicant spoke with her son about lending money for his family home / Applicant loaned $40,000 in total, first loan of $10,000 and second of $30,000 / Applicant’s son made regular repayments to the Applicant until September 2022, when he left the family home and could no longer afford repayments / $7920 had been repaid, and since the separation, Applicant’s son had repaid a further $16,040.00 / Applicant sought remaining balance from Respondent, $16,040.00 / Held: Tribunal can only consider family loans in the context of contract law and not relationship property issues / Available facts point to Respondent not being a party to the agreement /  Respondent was not involved in any conversations with the Applicant about the loan / Loan amounts were paid by bank transfer to the Applicant’s son account /  Insufficient evidence to support Respondent being party to loan agr…