Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Applicant sent invoices to Respondent for pruning work carried out in 2022 / Respondent partially paid invoice / Respondent counter-claimed cost of work should not have been more than $20,000 / Applicant claimed unpaid balance / Held: Applicant's work accorded with what it was engaged to do / No agreed price limit on the work / Work was to be billed at cost based on payment to workers / Applicant invoiced in accordance with arrangement in place with Respondent / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $20,000 / Respondent's counter-claim dismissed / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicant entered into a general agency agreement with Respondent regarding a premises / Applicant later presented an offer to lease part of the premises from a third party, which Respondent rejected / A few months later, Respondent entered into a lease agreement with the third party / Applicant claimed it was entitled to commission under the agency agreement and sought $27,327.83 from Respondent / Held: Applicant was not entitled to commission as the lease was negotiated through a different agent and had different terms / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant provided digital marketing services to Respondent / Respondent unhappy with Applicant's work and purported to cancel contract with immediate effect / Applicant claimed payment for unpaid invoices / Held: Respondent had not established that services provided under contract included ongoing Search Engine Optimisation work / Applicant not in breach of contract / Respondent not entitled to cancel contract with immediate effect / Applicant not obligated to hand over Google ads to Respondent / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4,260.75 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Property / Remedy / Applicant purchased new-build home from First Respondent / Applicant discovered flooding and engaged a plumber to investigate / Plumber found pipe was obstructed and Applicant notified First Respondent / First Respondent contracted Second Respondent to inspect and clear blockage / Flooding occurred again a month later / Applicant claimed payment for plumbing invoices / Held: insufficient evidence to prove blockages were caused by construction waste / Other waste material caused blockage further down the system / No remedy available to Applicant for costs incurred / Applicant ordered to pay Second Respondent / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Respondent entered contract agreement to board Applicant's house / Applicant claimed Respondent left before her notice period ended / Applicant claimed Respondent is liable to pay rent / Held: Respondent not bound to fixed-term contract as a boarder / Respondent bound to give Applicant no more than 3 weeks notice / In effect, no notice was given as Respondent left on the same day notice was given / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $600 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Applicant had insurance with his bank, underwritten by the Respondent / Applicant believed he had roadside assistance cover / Applicant called roadside assist when his campervan wouldn’t start / Applicant was advised that because the campervan was over 3000kg it would not be covered by the policy / Applicant arranged a tow at his own expense costing $700 / Applicant believed he had been sold a policy that was wrong for his vehicle and could not be used / Applicant claimed $700 / Held: No evidence was presented by Applicant to suggest he had been sold a policy that included Roadside Assist, or that he had been charged premiums that included Roadside Assist / As Applicant did not take out an insurance policy with Roadside Assist cover for this vehicle, and as he did not pay premiums for Roadside Assist, Respondent has no obligation under the contract of insurance to pay for the cost of the tow / Claim dismissed.

Disputes-Tribunal-Advertisement-Nelson.pdf

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent to make dentures / Applicant was unhappy with the result / Applicant claimed $4000.00 as she believed the dentures were not fit for purpose / Applicant took her complaint to the Dental Council who concluded that the practitioner followed appropriate procedures and gave appropriate care / Applicant failed to engage with follow up care appointments / Respondent stated they should have been given the opportunity to try and alter the dentures to make them fit / Held: services provided by Respondent were carried out with reasonable care and skill / Dentures were reasonably fit for purpose / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Applicant's employee drove car Applicant owned and had crash with Respondent / Applicant's employee turned left out of driveway and drove up street / Respondent stopped at stop sign on side road intersecting with road Applicant's employee was on / Respondent said Applicant's car was indicating left but she changed her mind halfway through turn causing crash / Respondent said he was stationary when collision occurred / Applicant's insurer held Respondent liable but Respondent refused to pay / Applicant's insurer claimed for damages of $18,119.50 for breach of driver's duty of care / Held: Respondent breached duty of care by failing to wait at stop sign until road was clear and not checking for other road users before entering intersection / Respondent should have been more careful even if Applicant's employee was indicating as she was entitled to right of way / Damage to Applicant's car not consistent with Respondent's version of events / Amount written off vehicle obtained…

Negligence / Applicant and Respondent were drinking at a mutual friend’s house / Applicant went home and left his vehicle and its key at the friend’s house / Respondent later advised Applicant he had driven the vehicle and damaged it / Applicant claimed for repair costs / Held: evidence indicated Respondent damaged Applicant’s vehicle / Respondent breached his duty of care by causing the damage / Applicant entitled to compensation for the reasonably foreseeable loss incurred as a result of Respondent’s breach / Valuation showed vehicle was worth $7,000.00 before the damage occurred / Cost of repairs quoted as $5,539.78 / Applicant sold vehicle in its damaged state for $1,500 / Deducting the sale price from the vehicle’s valuation meant Applicant incurred a loss of $5,500.00 / Applicant claimed to be compensated $4,999.95, that amount was less than the reasonably foreseeable loss incurred / Respondent ordered to pay $4,999.95 / Claim allowed.

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.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased car advertised for sale online at a car yard operated by Respondent / Second Respondent showed car to Applicant but car advertised under Respondent's name / Second Respondent believed sale was private sale as they owned car / Broken engine mount identified 2 weeks after purchase and faulty transmission identified 6 weeks later / Respondent offered to look at car but Applicant had transmission replaced by another mechanic / Applicant claimed $6106.21 for mechanic, towing and replacement transmission / Held: Sale was represented to Applicant as being a sale by Respondent and so was not private sale / Car not of acceptable quality as cost and nature of repairs required were more significant than reasonable consumer would expect within 8 weeks of purchase / Failure was of substantial character as repairs cost two-thirds of purchase price / Costs claimed by Applicant were reasonable and were reasonably foreseeable losses from…

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.