Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Trespass / Parking / Applicant’s car was parked for five minutes in a private parking area managed by Respondent / Parking area had signs indicating no parking / Breach notice was sent to Applicant demanding payment of $95.00 / Applicant received late payment notices totalling $225.00 / Respondent then passed the matter to a debt collection agency, which added fees / Respondent claimed it was entitled to total of $555.69, including $193.20 for debt collection fees and $42.49 for interest / Applicant sought a declaration that he was not liable to pay fees demanded by Respondent / Held: no contractual basis for parking fee / Trespass to park on private property without authority / Damages measured by determining a reasonable fee for use of the land / Car parking area overall was nearly full when Applicant parked there / Risk of genuine customers being turned away / $95.00 was a reasonable fee in the circumstances / In absence of contract, no basis for Respondent to charge extra for late …

Consumer law / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA) / Applicant is a garage and ordered an engine from Respondent to install in a customer's car / Engine would not turn over after being installed and had to be returned to Respondent / Respondent said engine was inspected and turned over before it was sent to Applicant / Applicant discovered engine had come from water-damaged car and said they would not have purchased it had they known this / Applicant claimed $3036 for the labour costs in installing and removing faulty engine / Held: engine was not reasonably fit for purpose in meaning of s 138(2) CCLA as it could not be used in Applicant's customer's car / s 138(1) CCLA means CCLA applies as Respondent knew Applicant was a garage and Respondents would know any parts purchased by Applicants would be installed in Applicant's customer's cars / Labour costs incurred by Applicant were reasonably foreseeable result of Applicant having to install and then remove and return faulty engi…

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a spa from Respondent for $11,995 / Four years later, a fault occurred with the spa and it stopped heating the water / Applicant contacted Respondent for repairs and was advised the spa was no longer under warranty and a $150 charge would apply for a technician inspection / Technician advised that the circulation pump needed to be replaced and would not be covered under warranty / Applicant paid $189 for the circulation pump and a further $149.99 for installation / Applicant claimed for the technician’s inspection fee, circulation pump and the installation cost amounting to $488.99 / Held: evidence suggested fault with spa may have been caused by improper water management by the Applicant / Spa found to be of acceptable quality / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Damage to property / Person was driving Applicant's car when stone struck and damaged windscreen / Alleged by person driving Applicant's car that stone was flicked up from garden machinery operated by Respondent / Respondent said area stone alleged to have come from was not mown / Applicant claimed $1744.80 for cost of windscreen replacement / Held: person driving Applicant's car had not proved that Respondent had used garden machinery negligently even if Respondent had caused damage / Damage to property claim required damage to have arisen from negligent act and presence of damage alone insufficient to prove claim / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Respondent’s managing director offered to sponsor Applicant’s senior teams / Contract was agreed upon by Applicant and Respondent / Respondent was invoiced at the end of season / Invoices were not paid by Respondent as he was removed from his position / Respondent’s refuse to pay invoices / Respondents state that managing director had no authority to contract for Respondent / Applicant claims to pay $17,537.50 in unpaid invoices / Held: Managing director was not acting with actual authority / Managing director had apparent authority to enter into contract with Applicant / Respondent bound to contract by managing director / Claim allowed / Respondent to pay Applicant $17,537.50. 

Contract / Applicant and Respondent entered into discussions about Respondent taking in a dog as a pet, with the understanding that Applicant would be able to breed several litters from the dog / Dog produced one litter, but relationship between Applicant and Respondent soured / Applicant sought to have dog returned to them, claimed they had cancelled agreement and dog was their property / Held: Agreement was unintentionally breached due to parties’ inability to agree on variations to the original terms / Order made for dog to be partly vested to Applicant for no more than 12 months, in order for original agreement to be fulfilled with one final litter / Upon expiry of 12 months or successful delivery of one litter, whichever came first, dog to be vested wholly to Respondent / Claim allowed in part.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993/ Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) / Applicant purchased a laptop for $2300.00  / Unit ran extremely hot, randomly shutting down or did not open programmes / Applicant returned to the Respondent’ shop and was sold thermal paste to try to address the overheating issue / Applicant had further issues and returned the laptop to the Respondent for diagnosis / Applicant said he was then told that because he had applied thermal paste, that had voided the warranty and no further remedy was available / Held: Respondent was obliged to remedy the original failure of acceptable quality in a reasonable timeframe and failed to do so / Respondent also breached the FTA by recommending a potential remedy which would breach the warranty without informing him of that  / Then using that as a basis to decline further remedies / Applicant entitled to reject the goods and obtain a refund / Applicant obliged to return the laptop within the timeframe / Respondent ordered t…

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased spa pool from Applicant in 2017 / In December 2023 a technician came to look at a fault with the spa heater and discovered the frame of the spa was entirely rotten / Applicant claimed $10,463.00 being the cost to replace the spa / Respondent stated the rot was caused by flooding in the area / Held: no evidence of flooding that would cause that kind of damage / Failure was of substantial character as the pool should be able to withstand exposure to rain and splashes / Spa pool was halfway through its expected lifespan / Compensation should take into consideration depreciation / Respondent ordered to pay $5,000.00 / Claim granted in part.

Contract / Applicant needed a builder's report on house she wanted to purchase / Respondent agreed to provide visual inspection and provide comments on what could be seen but not a full builder's report / Respondent emailed comments on house to Applicant after inspection / Respondent's email said some piles had been replaced while others were old and still looked okay / Cladding prevented closer inspection of piles / Kitchen window cracked and joinery issues identified after Applicant purchased house / Cause of issues identified as rotting piles causing house to sink / Applicant claimed $30,000 to fix piles, replace window and kitchen joinery on basis Respondent should have identified rotting piles /  Held: Respondent did not breach agreement of what it would provide to Applicant / Respondent only engaged to provide non-invasive, visual inspection / Applicant could not prove cladding had been removed when Respondent completed inspection such that Respondent should have seen rotting pil…

Contract / Applicant and Respondent had arrangement where Respondent would subcontract Applicant to do work on its behalf / Parties had established payment arrangements where Respondent would make payment upon receipt of invoice from Applicant / Applicant issued invoice to Respondent which Applicant said Respondent had not paid / Respondent said they were not liable as they paid business belonging to Applicant's former employee who had directed them to do so / Applicant claimed for payment of invoice worth $19, 875.67 / Held: Respondent breached obligation to pay Applicant / Respondent deviated from payment arrangements in place between parties without notice to Applicant and Applicant did not receive payment / Respondents failed to exercise sufficient commercial caution or care in accepting instructions from Applicant's former employee about invoicing matters / Respondents did pay money but it has not paid Applicant's invoice in line with contractual arrangements and did not question …

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant brought sofa from Respondent with USB and reclining functions advertised / Applicant complained to Respondent about electrical fault six months after purchase as USB and reclining functions failed / Respondent attempted repairs of sofa / Applicant found repairs were unsuccessful and had damaged leather / Respondent collected sofa and offered replacement, partial refund, or in-store credit and suggested power surge caused issues / Applicant did not agree to those options / Applicant claimed for non-electric sofa of same value or full refund of $2099, plus compensation and reimbursement of filing fee / Held: sofa was not of acceptable quality as marketed functions failed after six months / Applicant rejected sofa within reasonable time after giving Respondent reasonable opportunity to remedy faults / Applicant entitled to full refund of $2099 for sofa, refund of $50 carrier fee Respondent charged for transport of sofa for repairs, p…

Tort / Negligence / Nuisance / Applicants own properties on shared driveway and Respondents own house next to driveway / Applicants concerned about excess water flowing from Respondents' property over driveway from damaged pipe / Respondents gave impression that issue would be fixed within 2 months but it was not / Respondents believed driveway already damaged and denied they nor activities on their property had damaged driveway / Applicants claimed $2500 as contribution to repair costs / Held: Respondents breached duty to Applicants by causing or exacerbating damage to driveway near Respondents' water pipe / Pre-existing damage present but damage adjacent to Respondents' property was more severe / Independent construction consultant found damage was exacerbated by continuous flooding from Respondents' water pipe / Applicants contributed to driveway damage as Applicants aware of pre-existing driveway damage but did not take remedial action / Apportionment of responsibility for damage e…