Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Negligence / Contract / Applicants engaged Respondent for repair work on vacant property / Respondent was given key, which was kept in garage to facilitate sub-contractors attending property / Shortly after work was completed, Applicants stored some items in the house / Items later found missing, with no sign of break-in / Applicants alleged Respondent was at fault, claimed cost of lost items / Held: Respondent owed duty of care to keep key secure / Respondent was not careless with key, had not breached duty / After break-in, key was found in garage where it had been left / No evidence key in garage was the one used to enter property / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant brought gaming goods from Respondent via an online sale / Applicant arranged courier pick up of the goods from the Respondent but claims only some of the goods purchased were in the package provided to the courier / Applicant claims a refund of $160 for the missing goods / Respondent claims he agreed to send a mixed group of items, all of which he included in the package / Held: there was a lack of clear evidence to show a breach of contract, therefore no finding could be made in the Applicant’s favour / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant developed two units / Respondent contracted to paint units / Applicant unhappy with the painted finish and subsequently had remedial work done by Respondent / Applicant remained unhappy with remedial work / Applicant claimed $18,160.80 refund / Held: remedial work carried out by Respondent unsuccessful and did not produce acceptable finish in the front unit / Back unit did not sustain similar damage / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $9,660 for the front unit / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant sought recovery of two engines he said had been lost by Respondents / Applicant said truck was in possession of Respondent / Applicant instructed that the truck and two engines were to be delivered to another city / Truck delivered without engines / Held: a bailment relationship arose for storage of truck and contents but no formal contract agreed / Respondent not obliged to compensate Applicant regarding loss of engine 1 / No breach of duty in relation to engine 2 / Insufficient evidence to prove claim that loss was result of failures by Respondents / Respondents not liable to compensate Applicant / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Property / Flatting / Applicant rented sleepout from Respondent / Applicant gave notice to Respondent that he was going to leave / Applicant and Respondent disagreed on how much bond should be returned / Applicant claimed for full refund of bond / Held: no evidence Respondent made it clear the Applicant's bed could only remain if the Applicant continued to pay rent until the bed is removed / Applicant entitled to pay short paid 4 days rent, deducted from bond / Respondent ordered to refund $421.43 to Applicant / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicant and Respondent entered into Contract Milking Agreement / Applicant claimed $26,810.19 for losses suffered as a result of unlawful termination of contract by Respondent / Respondent counter-claimed $30,000 for losses suffered as a result of 25 cows being incorrectly dried off out of season / Held: Applicant did not breach contract by failing to carry out the dry cow process properly / Applicant's contract unlawfully terminated by Respondent / Applicant entitled to claim compensation for losses resulting from cancellation of contract / Respondent did not attend final hearing to present submission on counter-claim / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $26,810.19 / Claim allowed / Counter-claim dismissed.

Personal Property / Applicant and Respondent rented storage unit to store their belongings / Relationship between Applicant and Respondent deteriorated / Applicant unable to access unit and asked Respondent for his belongings / Applicant claimed 16 items were not returned, valued over $3,000 / Held: Applicant has onus of proof to prove claim / No independent evidence that the unit held Applicant's belongings when Respondent entered it or Respondent had possession of Applicant's belongings / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant contracted Respondent to complete house renovations / Applicant claimed Respondent's contractor used the wrong product when painting the cladding, which caused the paint to flake off and look uneven / Applicant sought $25,874.45 in compensation (including the filing fee of $180.00) and $1,437.50 for the cost of a technical report / Held: Respondent more likely than not used the wrong product when painting the cladding / Applicant not entitled to recover $180 filing fee / Applicant entitled to remedial costs minus depreciation ($19,694.45) /  Applicant entitled to recover the cost of expert report as a foreseeable loss resulting from the breach / Respondent must pay Applicant $21,150.00 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicant contacted Respondent for quote to lay concrete driveway / Respondent requested Applicant to remove garage area from contract and price was reduced / Applicant boxed up the driveway / Respondent told Applicant that boxing was in the wrong place and boxing would have to be altered / Applicant advised that re-boxing would cost extra / Respondent agreed to pay extra cost / Invoice higher than initial quote / Respondent only paid sum in the original quote / Held: Contract is between Applicant and Respondent’s company / Claim struckout with Respondent personally / Parties agreed driveway would follow metalled area / Additional costs were more than minor / Applicant should have updated costing / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant booked a band for his daughter’s wedding / Applicant paid $690.00 deposit / Applicant contacted Respondent to explain band was mistakenly booked / Preferred band was not available so Applicant cancelled / Applicant sought refund of $690.00 deposit and $2000 for pain and suffering relating to his daughter / Held: emails do not indicate qualifying mistake under legislation / Cancellation happened five months before proposed booking date / Sufficient period for band to get another booking / Applicant entitled to a refund of deposit under the contract / Applicant not entitled to $2000 compensation for pain and suffering / Respondent ordered to pay $690 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Applicant entered into a contract with Respondent to provide home concept plans / Parties agreed that Applicant would pay $3,000.00 for concept plans / Applicant ultimately entered into a contract with another company to build her home / Applicant stated there were delays in receiving plans and lack of communication from Respondent / Applicant sought refund of $3,000.00 / Held: Applicant not entitled to a refund / No agreement as to timeframe for receiving plans / Respondent fulfilled their obligations under agreement / Applicant not entitled to a refund or compensation / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased 17 cubic metres of potting mix from Respondent / Mix was meant to be same blend Applicant had been purchasing from Respondent for several years for raising organic seedlings / Within weeks, seedlings were not germinating or were distorted / Respondent offered to replace product / Offer was not accepted, Applicant continued using mix for some months / Applicant sought compensation for loss of stock and profit / Held: lab testing indicated product not consistent with previous orders, not fit for purpose / Respondent therefore in breach of implied and specific terms of contract / However, Applicant failed to mitigate losses, and evidence insufficient to support scale of losses / Applicant entitled to nominal compensation of $200 due to failure of product to be fit for purpose, and $541.77 cost of lab tests / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $741.77 / Claim allowed in part.