Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Fraud / Applicant obtained healthy homes assessment report from Respondent / Applicant discovered extractor fans and heater were not installed in the property, which were necessary items to achieve healthy homes compliance / Former sub-contractor of Respondent engaged in fraudulent behaviour whilst undertaking work for Applicant / Applicant claimed reimbursement of $1,150 payment / Held: Respondent is not prevented from being liable to Applicant just because Respondent were without legal fault or moral blame and did not benefit in any way from sub-contractor's fraud / Value of report is $250 / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $900 / Claim allowed.

Consumer Law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant booked holiday through Respondent / Booking included accommodation in stopover city / Stopover accommodation was booked for two nights / Outgoing flight left stopover city at 12:15am of second night / Applicant believed she would stay at hotel on second night, depart stopover city at 12:15am following night / Applicant missed flight / Applicant claimed Respondent misled her / Respondent sought compensation for costs incurred as result of missing flight / Held: Applicant’s itinerary clearly stated time and date of flight / Applicant was asked to check itinerary before accepting and paying / Applicant confirmed acceptance of itinerary / Applicant’s loss was not due to failure by Respondent to provide service with reasonable care and skill / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Maritime Rules / Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 / Contributory Negligence Act 1947 / Collision at sea between Applicant's bowrider boat and Respondent's catamaran / Applicant and Applicant's insurer claimed $13,756.26 for loss and damages / Respondent counterclaimed $8,970 damages / Held: skipper of vessels have a duty of care to others on sea / Respondent was negligent and failed to take all reasonable precautions in the circumstances to keep proper lookout / Applicant also contributed to cause of collision and subsequent damage by anchoring in no anchoring zone and failing to display anchor shapes / Applicant's company vicariously liable for Applicant's contributory negligence / Respondent liable for 80% of damages and Applicant jointly responsible for 20% / Respondent and Respondent's Insurer ordered to pay Applicant's Insurer $10,324.80, of which $500 paid to Applicant / Applicant and Applicant's Insurer ordered to pay…

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent to install flooring / Applicant unhappy with Respondent’s work / Respondent tried to fix issues identified by Applicant / Applicant wanted to cancel contract, requested refund and for Respondent to uplift and remove floor / Respondent offered to vary contract / Parties agreed Respondent would supply materials at discounted price and Applicant would engage different installer to finish job / New installer told Applicant floor would need to be taken up and started from scratch / Applicant claimed full refund of $3835.80 / Held: insufficient evidence that defects in Respondent’s work were substantial or could not be remedied by Respondent or another installer / Applicant affirmed contract when he agreed to variation / Applicant not entitled to refund / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Land Transport Rule: Vehicle Standards Compliance 2002 / Applicant purchased car from Respondent for $1,900.00 / Applicant then took car for pre-warrant inspection / Vehicle found to be unsafe to drive / Applicant sought refund of purchase price as well as $250.00 for fuel and wasted time / Held: Applicant entitled to reject car and recover purchase price as the repairs to warrantable standard would cost more than car's purchase price / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,900.00 and collect vehicle / No evidence of the amount of petrol wasted / Damages not awarded for wasted time / Claim granted in part.

Contract / Respondent engaged Applicant to paint holiday house owned by Respondent / Applicant moved into Respondent's property and wanted to purchase property / Applicant claimed to be paid $6,349.61 for repair costs / Held: Respondent not bound by enforceable agreement to sell / Applicant has not shown Respondent received benefit and had been enriched by work on property / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased car from Respondent / Two days after purchase Applicant experienced problems with car / Applicant took car to mechanic who told him the CV joint and strut mount on the front passenger side needed replacing / Turbo also needed replacing / Held: the Act applies / Problems with the car were of substantial character / Applicant entitled to reject car and obtain refund of purchase price / Respondent to pay Applicant $8500.00 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Tenancy / Parties entered into Tenant and Sublettee agreement / Applicant seeks repayment of bond, administration costs, filing fees for Tenancy and Disputes tribunals / Respondent disputes claim saying applicant didn’t undertake additional work around the property and damaged a wall / Held: applicant did not breach terms of agreement by not undertaking additional work and by putting two holes in the wall for a TV bracket / Respondent is a tenant not the landlord / No evidence from landlord that has made applicant liable for damaged caused to wall / No actual cost of damage caused to respondent / No breach / Outcome: claim allowed, respondent to pau applicant $800.00

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased electric bike from Respondent / Applicant said assurance from sales staff that bike was able to charge phone a critical factor in purchase / Applicant discovered phone could not be charged from bike / Applicant claimed $13,484 refund and legal costs / Held: bike of acceptable quality and fit for purpose / No right to reject bike and contract remains binding / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant entered into a contract via contra agreement / Applicant agreed to paint stock car belonging to Respondent free of charge / Respondent agreed to put Applicant's signage on the car when it raced at a speedway / Respondent did not like colour and repainted it / Once repainted, Applicant’s signage was no longer visible / Car driven at Speedway / Applicant’s owner sent invoice to Respondent for $2062 for paint work done / Held: agreement was for Applicant to paint the car in return for Respondent allowing car to display Applicant’s signage / Applicant did not breach contract / Applicant received no benefit for work done / Applicant entitled to invoiced amount / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2062 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicant worked at Respondent’s painting business occasionally / Applicant was paid for his work / Conflicting accounts of whether Applicant would receive payment to assist Respondent in painting his son’s house / Applicant said Respondent offered to pay him in paint / Applicant said he left note on Respondent’s vehicle telling him what paint he wanted / Respondent denied any such agreement was entered into and denied seeing note / Applicant claimed that because he wasn’t given paint promised, he invoiced Respondent for his work / Invoice was for $1,250.00 / Whether Respondent agreed to pay Applicant by giving him paint and if so, whether he now required to pay Applicant $1,250.00 in lieu of the paint / Held: no agreement between the parties for Respondent to pay Applicant in cash for helping to paint house / Insufficient evidence to prove Respondent agreed to pay Applicant in paint for helping him to paint house / Respondent not obligated to pay invoiced amount of $1,250.0…

Contract / Misrepresentation / Applicants claim $43,604.25 in damages from Respondents for misrepresenting bathroom leaking issues in property sale / Held: Respondents made a false representation inducing the Applicants to purchase the property by ticking “no” as to whether the property had any leaking issues / Respondents had been advised of leaking issues in both bathrooms by their long-term tenant prior to the sale of the property /  Respondents had previously arranged a contractor to investigate and remediate one of the leaks / Applicants entitled to compensation for the cost of fixing the leak and its effects in the bathroom / The monetary limit the Tribunal may award is $30,000 / Respondents to pay Applicants $30,000/ Claim allowed.