Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased inverter from Respondent / Inverter overheated and could not be repaired / First Respondent declined Applicant's request for refund / First Respondent stated inverter was water damaged / Applicant claimed full refund / Held: insufficient evidence that watermarks caused the failure of inverter / Inverter was not of acceptable quality / Applicant entitled to refund / Claim against First Respondent dismissed as Applicant did not form contract with him / Second Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $588.33 / Refund reduced by 34 months of the 120 months expected life of the unit / Claim allowed in part.

Consumer law / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicant booked tour with Respondent’s company for himself and his parents to travel to three European cities / Applicant was unhappy with tour and said Respondent failed to deliver what was promised / Applicant sought partial refund of $4920 / Held: Respondent did not make false or misleading representations about trip / Trip covered what was offered / One hotel room was not up to standard / Applicant was entitled to room appropriate for triple occupancy, but was given twin occupancy room with added rollaway bed / Certain parts of the tour were not provided with reasonable care and skill / Breach not of substantial character as parts of trip were delivered as promised / Appropriate to award damages in relation to hotel room and overall customer experience / Respondent ordered to refund Applicant $600 / Claim allowed in part.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a horse from Respondent / Applicant intended to develop the horse for dressage and show jumping events / Applicant declined to get a vet pre-purchase check / Applicant claimed after purchase that a pre-existing condition became apparent / Applicant claimed $24,155.06 on the basis that the horse was not fit for purpose due to pre-existing condition / Held: Applicant did not met the threshold in claiming the horse was not fit for purpose / Evidence by vets indicated horse could become an able jumping horse / No evidence found of pre-existing condition / Text messages suggested real reason for rejecting the horse was that the Applicant’s wife was not happy with the purchase / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent to draw plans for their intended new home / Respondent did not deliver plans on time or addressed changes requested by Applicant / Applicant cancelled contract and sought refund of fees / Held: Respondent did not carry work with reasonable care and skill / Initial plans do not reflect brief / Plans exceeded Applicant's budget / Agreed timeline not kept and Respondent failed to respond in a timely and professional way / Applicant entitled to full refund of fees / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2,875 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicant booked a cruise with Respondent / Applicant cancelled booking two weeks before departure, believing Respondent had changed its Covid protection requirements from those it had advertised, resulting in no protective Covid policy at all / Applicant requested full refund of $15,212.50 / Respondent declined refund in reliance on its terms and conditions, which stated funds were non-refundable for cancellation within 90 days of departure / Applicant claimed $16,212.50, for refund plus $1,000.00 for cancelled flights, interest and mental stress / Held: Respondent did not breach contract / Applicant unable to prove that pre-departure screening or testing for COVID-19 for all passengers was a term of contract / Respondent provided services with reasonable care and skill / Respondent’s conduct was not misleading or deceptive / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant purchased house from Respondent / After settlement, central heating found not to be working properly / Applicant paid for repairs which cost $396.75 / Problem not remedied so Applicant had gas valve replaced costing $908.50 / Held: agreement for sale and purchase agreement included gas central heating as a chattel in the sale / There was a warranty that central heating would be in reasonable working order on settlement / Fact central heating was not working soon after settlement was sufficient evidence to infer the problem existed on settlement day / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,305.25 / Claim granted.

Negligence / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant purchased some sound equipment from a seller advertised on Respondent’s website / Applicant did not receive the goods / Applicant later discovered seller had been removed by Respondent from its site / Applicant subsequently learned site had been subject of a phishing scam / Applicant claimed Respondent was negligent and or breached CGA by failing to inform him the seller was a scam / Applicant claimed $720.00 from Respondent / Held: Applicant’s claim in negligence was for economic loss not for loss or destruction of property, therefore outside Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear claims in tort / Respondent’s contractual terms and conditions went to some lengths to explain Respondent was not responsible for things beyond its control / Scam was clearly example of something beyond Respondent’s control / Respondent provided services with reasonable care and skill / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Respondent purchased a motorhome from Respondent for $20,000.00 / Respondent had paid $5000.00 / Applicant sought remaining $15,000.00 as well as $2,450.00 for the use of his workshop / Respondent counterclaimed $27,000.00 for repairs discovered after purchase; less $14,000.00 he acknowledged he owed to the Applicant / Held: motorhome was 37 years old when purchased / Onus on Respondent to carry out his own due diligence as was a ‘buyer beware’ situation / No misrepresentation / Not sufficient certainty of a binding contract between the parties about the use of the workshop / Respondent had breached the contract by failing to pay full amount for motorhome / Respondent liable for outstanding balance of $14,000.00 / Claim partially granted and counterclaim dismissed.

Contract / Applicants purchased property in Respondent’s development / Applicants expressed need for yard space, chose lot with most yard space / Specification documents sent prior to purchase included full-height wardrobes in each bedroom / In pre-settlement inspection, Applicants discovered useable yard space was significantly reduced by inset steps and inward gate swing, and large bulkhead was taking up significant space in one wardrobe / Applicants raised issues, Respondent stated contract allowed it to vary plans if required / Applicants claimed $2,000.00 compensation for wardrobe and $14,000.00 for yard, based on loss of volume and useable land area/amenity respectively / Held: Variations made by Respondent were of lesser quality than specified, and materially diminished value, use and enjoyment of the dwelling, in breach of contract / Applicants would not have purchased property had they known of these outcomes which were not remediable / Sums claimed were reasonable compensatio…

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent engaged Applicant to advocate for them in a personal grievance with their employer / Respondent contracts with its clients on a contingency basis until the end of mediation / All additional work performed on an hourly rate / Clients required to pay fees on an hourly basis if they terminate contract prior to an outcome / Respondent terminated contract prior to reaching outcome with employer / Applicant sought payment of invoice ($5182.50) plus debt collection costs ($1042.50) / Held: contract  formed between the parties, which included terms of engagement that were not 'harsh or unconscionable'/ Applicant failed to provide its advocacy services with reasonable care and skill / Respondent entitled to 75% fee reduction, $1035.00 / Applicant unable to be awarded disputed debt collection expenses / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Applicant contracted Respondent to transport tractor-style ride-on lawn mower / Dimensions of mower given to Respondent incorrect / Transport costs increased from $1,219.00 to $2,871.09 / Applicant requested Respondent to halt delivery but Respondent continued with transport / Applicant sought refund of increased costs / Held: Respondent continued transport in circumstances where there was no clear agreement between parties about price / Applicant not entitled to full refund because he has received benefit of Respondent's services and cause of incorrect pricing was the Applicant / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $400 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Applicant engaged Respondent to paint her rental property and paid $5,034.13 deposit / Before work started Applicant cancelled contract and asked for deposit back / Respondent refunded $4,114.13 but retained $920.00 / Applicant sought an order that Respondent was liable to refund full deposit / Parties’ contract stated that if contract was cancelled before work began, Applicant would be provided full refund / Respondent claimed situation was unusual, as Applicant had re-opened an earlier quote she had previously declined / Respondent claimed in this situation it should be entitled to charge for administration costs incurred / Held: Respondent did not indicate its original terms and conditions would not apply when Applicant accepted the re-opened estimate / If Respondent wished to change its terms, it needed to make this clear / Original terms and conditions therefore still applied / Applicant entitled to full refund / Respondent ordered to pay $920.00 / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased a vehicle from Respondent for $5,500.00 / Applicant told Respondent she would be driving around the country and asked if there was anything she should know about van / Respondent said van was in good working order / Applicant asked if she could take van for a pre-purchase inspection, but Respondent said her husband was a mechanic, so Applicant did not get an inspection done / Vehicle blew a head gasket while Applicant was driving around the country / Applicant claimed $4,800.00, comprising $4,279.80 for repairs plus other related travel costs / Held: misrepresentation to state vehicle was in good working order / Applicant entitled to understand it as a statement of fact in the circumstances / Applicant induced to buy vehicle without pre-purchase inspection / Applicant entitled to recover $4,279.80 spent on repairing vehicle / Applicant did not have evidence of other costs, so sum awarded was $4,279.80 / Claim all…