Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants booked flights via travel agent to fly with Respondent / Tickets were converted to flight credits due to Covid / Applicants requested a refund /  Respondent advised they had no record of their refund request and recommended that they rebooked using the credit / Applicants booked return international flights / When the Applicants arrived at the airport, they were told that Applicant’s mother’s ticket was invalid as the refund had been issued to her travel agent / Family purchased a new fare for $1327.03  / Applicant claimed $2327.03, $1327.03 cost of replacement ticket and $1000.00 for emotional distress / Held:  Respondents failed to exercise  reasonable care and skill / Appropriate award was the difference in the fares of $828.72 / Situation did not meet the high threshold for an emotional damages award / Respondent must pay $874.54, difference in fare and interest amount of $45.82 / Claim partially allowed.  

Negligence / Parties were involved in vehicle collision / Applicant was in his van on median strip, planning to turn right / Respondent turned right onto road / Respondent moved onto median strip to turn right and the two cars collided / Held: more likely that Respondent was responsible for damage to Applicant’s van / Applicant was entitled to be on median strip, and was there to be seen if Respondent had looked more carefully / No exceptions to rule that cars turning right must give way to all traffic not turning / Costs of repairs reasonable and consistent with damage done / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $11,984.02 / Claim allowed.  

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a cabin from Respondent for $9,107.00 / Cabin was constructed by a contractor / After construction, cabin’s door blew off, requiring replacement / Year before replacement door to arrive / Respondent also replaced some hardware / Applicant determined cabin was not safe, was concerned it would collapse / Applicant disposed of cabin / Applicant requested refund of price paid for cabin on basis it was not of acceptable quality or fit for purpose / Held: Applicant lost right to reject goods for refund when he disposed of cabin / Applicant’s claim likely would not have succeeded even if he had not disposed of cabin / Balance of probability was that cabin was of acceptable quality but failed due to its construction / Respondent agreed to make $2,000.00 goodwill payment to Applicant even if claim was dismissed / Claim dismissed.

Consumer Law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants purchased a purebred dog from the Respondent for $4,500.00 / Dog subsequently became lame and was diagnosed with a hip condition / Applicants claimed $15,114.17, refund of purchase price and costs of the dog’s diagnosis and treatment / Held: sale of the dog was covered by the CGA / Dog was not fit for purpose as a purebred, as it cannot be shown or bred /  Respondent ordered to $9,500.00, $4,500.00 refund of sale price and $5000.00 towards medical payments / Claim allowed in part.

Property / Fencing / Fencing Act 1978 (FA) / Parties owned adjoining properties / No fence between the two properties, just several old fence posts from previous fence / Applicant wanted to build a new fence on the boundary / Applicant served fencing notices, and Respondents served a cross notice the following month / Applicant sought an order than Respondents were liable to pay $8,000.00 towards the cost of a new boundary fence / Disagreements regarding height and style of fence, and complications due to heritage status of Respondents’ property / Held: substantial compliance with FA requirements for serving fencing notice and cross-notice by both parties / Lack of adequate fence between the parties’ properties in terms of FA / Specific orders made for construction of fence / Parties to share cost of building fence ($12,650.00) equally / Respondents ordered to pay Applicant $6,325.00 for fence / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased a furniture franchise from Respondent / Applicant claimed Respondent misrepresented potential of business because there was not enough work in the area to earn money promised / Applicant claimed $30,000 to cover losses suffered as a result of lack of income in the business / Held: Respondent induced Applicant to enter into the contract by making a misrepresentation that the business would earn $4,000 plus per week / Sales were so poor that the business had to cease trading / Applicant suffered loss and is entitled for compensation / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $30,000 / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant flew on domestic flight with First Respondent airline / Applicant’s checked-in bag was not returned until after a considerable delay / Applicant’s bag contained some perishable items including fish / Applicant said perishable goods had value of about $100.00 / Applicant claimed $2,700.00 for goods lost plus and time and inconvenience involved in retrieving bag / Claim brought against First Respondent airline and Second Respondent baggage handler company / Held: Applicant entitled to value of perishable goods / Applicant entitled to compensation for long period of delay and inconvenience / First Respondent failed to provide reliable and reasonable information to Applicant, amounting to misleading conduct / Applicant experienced waste of time and money as a result / Reasonable compensation for time and trouble caused by First Respondent’s misleading conduct was $750.00 / First Respondent ordered to pa…

Contract / Applicant provided Respondent estimate of $2,104.50 for renovation work, Respondent accepted and paid $1,052.25 deposit / When Applicant arrived on site, several factors increased scope of work / Applicant advised Respondent a price variation was needed, but no estimate was given / When work was completed, Applicant invoiced total of $8012.47, less deposit, leaving $6960.22 outstanding / As Respondent disputed amount charged, Applicant brought claim for balance of invoice / Held: pricing supplied by Applicant clearly stated it was an estimate, not a quote / Parties did not agree on a variation and scope of work did not change / Work proceeded on basis of original estimate / Final price may vary from an estimate by up to 15% / Due to costs incurred, reasonable to allow 15% variation / Respondent also liable for additional costs for cladding materials and finishing lines / Respondent ordered to pay $1726.25 / Claim allowed in part.

Insurance / Contract / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicant hired a truck from Respondent, selecting a zero excess insurance option / When Applicant returned truck, some damage was identified / Applicant was advised that his insurance did not cover that type of damage / Applicant paid the $2000.00 excess without prejudice and subsequently the repair costs were deducted from his credit card and the balance refunded / Applicant claimed he did not agree to the exclusion applied by the Respondent when he booked the truck / Applicant claimed a refund of the charged $2367.74 / Held: presence of an asterisk and a hyperlink on the online booking page was sufficient to alert customers to the existence of further terms / Common for insurance policies of all types to contain exclusions / Respondent gave adequate notice that the zero excess insurance option was subject to specific terms and conditions / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants purchased a kitchen from Respondent / Applicants claimed Respondent described the kitchen as being solid wood, when it had MDF panelling when installed / Applicants also claimed the oven and microwave cavities were installed at the incorrect height and the kitchen had imperfections and defects / Applicants claimed $18,630.00, half the purchase price / Held: Respondent represented the kitchen as being of solid wood / Kitchen was not made of solid wood as described / Evidence showed several defects with kitchen installation / Failure of kitchen to match the description was of substantial character as it departed in a significant respect from the description / Applicants entitled to $15,000 compensation / Compensation equated to difference in price between what was contracted for and what was received and that the Applicants had an inferior product installed in their home / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 Applicant referred to Respondent for washing machine repairs / Applicant not satisfied with Respondent's services / Applicant claimed damages being repair cost, cost of second-hand replacement washing machine, cost of new module and Tribunal's fee / Held: Respondent failed to carry out services with reasonable care and skill / Respondent's technician did not install both of the brushes in the module / Applicant entitled to remedy / Applicant awarded damages being repair cost and cost of second-hand replacement washing machine / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant entered contract to purchase second-hand fridge from Respondent / Fridge was working at Respondent’s storage facility, but once in Applicant’s possession it tripped the house fuse box every time Applicant tried to run it / Applicant had fridge tested by an electrician, who found its insulation resistance was too low and put the user at risk of electrical shock / Applicant tried unsuccessfully to resolve issues with Respondent / Held: fridge was unsafe to use / Fridge was not of acceptable quality / Failure was substantial and Applicant would not have purchased fridge if he had known of failure / Applicant entitled to refund of purchase price / Respondent ordered to pay $455.00 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Consumer law / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased food product from Respondent for distribution to staff and customers prior to Christmas / Applicant’s employee saw a media report regarding a recall of Respondent’s product / Article advised product should be returned or disposed of / Applicant immediately contacted as many staff and customers as possible to warn them but most businesses had shut down for the holiday break / Applicant contacted Respondent seeking a refund of $6,054.75 purchase price / Respondent stated that the product must be returned for credit to be issued / Applicant claimed it was unreasonable to expect recipients to retain a tainted and unsafe product indefinitely / Applicant claimed for a refund / Held: food was not fit for human consumption / Food was considered to be perished at point of contract / Refund not dependent on return of goods / Applicant entitled to full refund / Respondent ordered to pay $6,054.75 / Claim allowed.