Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant rented holiday home from Respondent / Applicant was unhappy with the cleanliness of the property / Applicant advised the Respondent of the issues / Respondent organised a cleaner to remedy the problem / Applicant claimed $1560.00, a 50% reduction in the holiday home rental / Held: evidence was inconsistent and did not fully support the claim / Respondent provided a remedy within a reasonable amount of time / Holiday home found to be reasonably clean / Respondent was not in breach of the contract or of the CGA / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant brought reformer bed off Respondent via an online auction / Applicant was dissatisfied with its condition / Applicant claimed Respondent misrepresented the condition inducing her to purchase it / Applicant claimed $1,740.89, cost to repair the reformer bed together with the Tribunal’s filing fee / Held: Respondent gave opinions as to the condition of the reformer bed and did not give clear statements / Applicant made assumptions based on the Respondent's opinion / Respondent therefore did not misrepresent the reformer bed and did not induce the Applicant into the purchase / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Applicant’s car was parked / Respondent was towing a gated trailer / Trailer gate opened causing damage to Applicant’s car / Applicant’s insurer claims cost of repair $3,411.65 / Respondent claims trailer defective when they hired it / Hire company disputes claim / Held: Respondent liable for repair of Applicant’s car / Applicant’s insurer has paid for repairs/ Respondent to pay Applicant’s insurer $3,411.65 / Claim upheld.

Negligence / Applicant hired a trailer from the Respondent / Respondent's employee helped Applicant attach the trailer to his car / Employee pushed the trailer into Applicant's car causing damage / Applicant claimed for damages of $1,307.38 for repairs / Held: Respondent's employee owed Applicant duty of care / Respondent vicariously liable as negligent act was in the course of normal business and in the scope of his or her employment / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,307.38 / Claim granted.

Contract / Parties were flatmates / Respondent was head tenant / Parties signed renting agreement / Applicant had physical altercation with Respondent’s partner / Respondent was not willing to allow Applicant to return to property / Applicant obtained the intervention of the Police who obliged Respondent to return Applicant’s possessions / Applicant did not remove his possessions from his room until a month later /  To pay rent while room was unable to be let to someone else Respondent kept Applicant’s bond of $570.00 / Applicant claimed for return of bond payment subject to renting agreement / Whether either party breached contract / If so, what if any damages or compensation was payable / Held: Applicant not entitled to refund of his bond because it was used to pay for unpaid rent / If the Applicant had taken his possessions away earlier then the bond would almost certainly have been refundable / Applicant’s personal circumstances did not make any difference to his obligation to pay …

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent completed building report for Applicant / Applicant claimed they relied on report for  conditional purchase of property / Applicant subsequently discovered issues with property not identified in the report / Applicant claimed $20,000 from Respondent for repair expenses / Respondent denied liability / Respondent claimed he completed a visual and non-invasive inspection and reported on relevant matters / Held: Respondent did not fail to take reasonable care and skill / Respondent did not fail to provide services which are fit for purpose / Applicant not entitled to any remedy / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Building Act 2004 / Applicant entered contract with Respondent to purchase house and land package / Shortly after settlement Respondent noticed cracks appearing on front path and driveway  / The cracks expanded / Respondent assured Applicant this was normal, recommended applying glue to the cracks / Applicant engaged specialist assessment / Applicant claims $4312.50 for remedial repairs and $90.00 for the Tribunal filing fee / Held: Respondent is in breach of sections 362I and 362Q of the Act / Respondent liable to pay claimed remedial costs / Claim allowed, Respondent to pay Applicant $4312.50. Tribunal fee not able to be awarded.

Nuisance / Respondent installed a sump on Applicant’s neighbouring property using a large digger / Applicant claims the digger caused significant vibrations that shook her house and caused cracking / Applicant claims for repairs for the damage / Held: not proven that the damage was caused by the Respondent / No evidence prevented to suggest damage caused by Respondent / Claim dismissed

Contract / Applicants purchased house from Respondents / Respondents carried out pre-purchase inspection / Applicants removed carpet and found floor boards were wet / Water damage caused by long-standing failure of waterproof membrane to tiled shower tray / Applicants' claim Respondents breached terms of the sale and purchase agreement and failed to carry out inspection services with reasonable care and skill / Applicants seek repair costs / Held: no basis on which to hold Respondents liable for repair costs / Not sufficiently proven Respondents missed vital indicators / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Respondent hired two scooters from the Applicant / Applicant alleged the scooters were thrown into the water / Applicant claimed the cost of the scooters plus loss of revenue totalling $3,141,62 / Held: sufficient evidence to establish the Respondent was responsible for the hiring and destruction of the scooters / Respondent was therefore responsible for any damage and resultant loss under the contract / Respondent ordered to pay $3,141,62 to the Applicant / Claim granted.

Contract / Respondent engaged Applicant to edit series of training videos / Respondent gave notice that no further editing work would be required after Applicant produced eight videos due to COVID-related changes / Applicant claimed $4,400.00 being the full contract price / Whether terms of contract allowed for variation in price or scope / Whether Respondent’s notice constituted repudiation of contract / Held: terms of contract did not allow for variation in price and scope / Notice constituted repudiation contract / Respondent to pay Applicant $2965.22 being $1530.43 for work done plus $1443.79 for 50% of remaining balance of contract price as general damages / Claim granted.

Contract / Applicant was looking for a car to drive as an uber / Applicant agreed to buy a car from the Respondent / Respondent accepted the offer and the Applicant paid a deposit of $1,000.00 / Afterwards, Applicant was advised that it was not an ideal car for an uber / Applicant cancelled the contract and requested a refund / Respondent declined to give a refund / Whether the contract was conditional / Whether the Applicant was entitled to a refund / Held: contract can be varied by agreement but not unilaterally after it has been formed / Contract was not varied to become conditional on an inspection or opinion / Deposit not generally refundable if a purchaser changes their mind / No evidence of significant issues with the car / Applicant was not entitled to a refund / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant entered into an agreement to purchase a property including chattels from the Respondent / Applicants agent raised issues following pre-settlement inspection regarding missing furniture, cleanliness and furniture swapped with inferior quality items / No agreement was reached prior to settlement / Applicants claim $20,390.00 for replacement and removal of furniture, cleaning and travel costs, and loss of rental income / Held: The Respondents breached the agreement by not leaving two side tables at the property and failing to remove stickers and decorative mirrors / The respondents did not breach of the vendor warranties for chattel / Applicants are not entitled to compensation for loss of rental income / Respondents to pay Applicants $600.00 / claim: upheld.