Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Consumer law / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant bought satellite dome from Respondent to use during fishing trip / Satellite not designed for use in specific regions / Applicant claimed refund $2,499 / Held: Respondent engaged in conduct that was misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive / Satellite not fit for Applicant's purpose / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2,499 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) / Applicants engaged Respondent to build standard model of tiny home / Variations made to standard model and price / Applicants purchased heat pump from third party for $3,985.00 and sought variation to reduce price accordingly / Respondent refused as heat pump not included in standard model / Applicant claimed damages of $3,985.00 for misleading advertising / Held: Applicants failed to prove on balance of probabilities that Respondent engaged in conduct that was misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive or made false or misleading representations, ss 9 and 13(g) FTA / No promise made that heat pump would be included at set price / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged a contractor to construct a new concrete driveway at his property / Respondent was the concrete supplier / Soon after completion of the work, Applicant noticed areas of discoloration with the concrete / Applicant claimed discolouration was because of defects in the product supplied by Respondent / Applicant provided a quote totaling $24,688.20 to have to the driveway removed and replaced /  However, Applicant limited to the amount claimed in his application to $20,000.00 / Held: evidence indicated concerns with the driveway construction rather than the quality of the concrete / Applicant failed to establish that concrete was not of acceptable quality / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant contracted Respondent to collect and transport a boat and trailer for a prepaid fee of $1,400.00 / Whilst the Respondent was transporting the boat, it broke free from its trailer and landed on the road, severely damaging it / The Applicant’s insurer assessed the damage and declared the boat a total loss /  The insurer paid out the Applicant for the loss / The Applicant seeks a refund of the $1,400.00 transport fee from the Respondent / Held: the contract was “at owner’s risk” / The Respondent completed the contract and is not liable for the loss, therefore the contract fee is not refundable / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased ear buds from Respondent / Applicant claimed they were faulty / Respondent sent buds away to be checked / Buds were thoroughly tested, no faults were found / Respondent replaced inner ear of buds to ensure no ongoing concerns / Applicant asked for refund, Respondent refused / Held: buds were repaired within a reasonable time / Buds were fit for purpose and would be accepted by a reasonable consumer / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant purchased house / Respondent acted as vendors’ solicitor / Applicant brought claim regarding purchase against Respondent as did not have contact details for vendors / Some imprecision in how Applicant named Respondent in claim / Respondent claimed Applicant’s claim was frivolous / Applicant requested $500 costs award / Held: Applicant raised no legal basis for claim against Respondent / Dispute arose from Applicant’s contract with vendors / Claim could only be brought against vendors / High threshold for finding claim frivolous or vexatious not met in this case / Applicant not acting in bad faith / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants arranged to have their child’s 21st birthday at the Respondent’s restaurant / Applicants chose a menu and made a booking for 100 people at $50.00 each, plus a band for $1,500.00,  total of $6,500.00 / Applicants paid deposit when making booking and balance at a later stage / Applicants claimed band did not show up and seven of the menu items were not provided / Applicants claimed partial refund of $3,000.00. / Held: Respondent failed to carry out agreed services with reasonable care and skill / Respondent failed to ensure services were fit for agreed purposes / Failure was substantial and could not be remedied / Respondent ordered to pay $3,000.00 / Claim allowed.  

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased second-hand hearing aids and charger / Faults developed in both items / Items sent to Respondent manufacturer for repairs / Hearing aids were repaired under warranty, but warranty for charger had expired, Respondent charged $185.14 for repair / Applicant believed charger worth $400 new should have lasted longer / Applicant claimed for recovery of repair charge / Held: Applicant did not need to be original purchaser to bring claim against manufacturer / Reasonable consumer paying retail price would expect charger to last longer than 18 months / Charger failed within 18 months, therefore was not of acceptable quality / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $185.14 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Vicarious liability /  Respondent 3 rear-ended Applicant’s car whilst driving in employers vehicle / Applicant and insurer claim $1,773.04 in repair costs from Respondent 3, their employer’s company, (Respondent 2) and the employer personally, (Respondent 1) / Respondents deny causing the damage / Held: collision and resulting damage caused by Respondent 3 failing to stop / Respondent 2 vicariously liable / Respondent’s 2 and 3 must pay the Applicant’s insurer $1,773.04 / Respondent 1 not personally liable as they were not the driver at time of collision / Claim partially allowed.

Contract / Consumer Law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant provided weekly garden and ground maintenance services to Respondent / Respondent terminated contract / Applicant claimed $28,437.56 in outstanding invoices / Respondent counterclaimed $30,000 for costs incurred for garden maintenance following termination of Applicant’s contract / Held: Applicant’s work done to a reasonable standard / Insufficient evidence to support claims of complaints made by tenants or owner about garden / Planting plan proposed by new gardeners not required by failure of Applicant to provide services with reasonable car and skill / Respondent’s failure to pay invoices within seven days was breach of contract / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $28,437.56 / Claim allowed, counterclaim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants purchased shade umbrella from Respondent / Shortly after installation, screws and washers needed replacing due to rusting / Respondent remedied issue / Applicants claimed to have continuing issues with umbrella, such as problems with lever, marks on canvas, tautness, small fray holes / Applicants claimed full refund / Held: issues with umbrella were not manufacturing defects / Issues were result of wear from use, and/or could be easily remedied / Applicants did not prove umbrella was not of acceptable quality / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Respondent engaged Applicant as contractor to provide coaching services / Contract had two-year term but allowed early termination with 6-weeks’ notice / Difficulties arose after Applicant commenced work; contract also disrupted by COVID-19 lockdowns / Respondent ultimately terminated contract, gave 6-weeks’ lump sum payment / Applicant claimed she had expectation of two-year contract, Respondent not entitled to terminate without good cause / Applicant claimed $22,672, including for income shortfall, loss of potential income, holiday pay / Held: Respondent entitled to terminate contract with notice, without cause / As independent contractor, Applicant not entitled to holiday pay / Respondent’s actions may have impacted Applicant’s ability to supplement income through subcontracting, as contract provided for; Applicant entitled to some compensation for lost income / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,680 / Claim allowed in part.  

Contract / Applicant contracted Respondent to provide joinery for building project / Applicant claimed joinery not delivered within reasonable time / Applicant claimed $38,000.00 repayment / Held: amount claimed exceeds $30,000.00 jurisdiction of tribunal / Claim cannot be divided into two $19,000.00 claims as that is divided cause of action / Claim dismissed.