Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased car from Respondent / Respondent stated vehicle was in mint condition and came with mechanical warranty / After sale, warranty could not be transferred to Applicant, parties agreed Respondent would compensate Applicant $100 / Applicant queried if any major repairs had been carried out, Respondent advised vehicle had coolant issue repaired 10 days prior to sale / Coolant lights came on while Applicant was driving vehicle / Mechanic identified many mechanical issues / Applicant claimed refund of the purchase price of vehicle / Held: Respondent had duty to disclose recent major repairs / Evidence proved car was not in mint condition / Respondent mispresented car’s condition / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $5100 / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 / Applicant purchased two electric scooters from Respondent / Applicant claimed one scooter never charged and second only charged once, ran for approximately 15 minutes, then failed to charge / Applicant sought refund and costs / Applicant claimed additional $5.00 for a third scooter which had been already refunded / Respondent denied liability, claimed Applicant may have damaged scooters  / Held: scooters were not fit for purpose, free from minor defects, or durable / No evidence that Applicant caused damage to scooters / Applicant entitled to reject scooters and obtain full refund / Applicant not entitled to costs or additional $5.00 refund for third scooter / Respondent to pay Applicant $1,050 / Claim allowed in part.

Causation and Entitlement to Surgery – s 67 and Schedule 1 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Corporation wrong to decline cover and surgery costs on basis Appellant’s injury was degenerative, not caused by accident. Appellant’s condition caused or contributed to by 1974 accident, Corporation’s decision declining cover wrong. Outcome: appeal allowed.

Fencing / Fencing Act 1978 / Applicant did not receive definitive response to fencing proposal and issued a fencing notice to Respondent / Respondent advised Applicant verbally that he did not want to build fence / Applicant claimed Respondent to contribute $20,000 for fencing cost / Held: lack of adequate information in fencing notice / Proposed costs appear excessive for 20m fence / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant purchased mattress for a shared apartment / Respondent was one of the other owners of the apartment / Apartment was owned in quarter shares / Practice for owners to share costs equally / Respondent acknowledged in emails that she was happy to purchase mattress / Respondent later declined to pay part of mattress cost / Mattress cost $1,600 / Applicant sought $400 from Respondent for her share / Held: emails sufficient to form a contract / Respondent agreed to contribute to cost of a new mattress / Respondent not entitled to unilaterally pull out of the contract / Respondent ordered to pay $400 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Respondent purchased trees from Applicant / Trees delivered but Respondent away from delivery address / Trees dried up / Payment had not been made / Applicant claimed for payment of trees, external debt collection costs and internal administration costs / Held: clear offer and acceptance / Nothing to indicate agreement conditional upon payment or whether delivery delayed / Respondent contractually obliged to pay for trees / Applicant cannot recover administrative costs as per s 43 Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $512.91 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant purchased vehicle from Respondent for $19,000.00, of which $1,500.00 plus $1,1000 for warranty was still owing / Vehicle was defective / Respondent took vehicle back for repair and offered Applicant a courtesy vehicle, which she declined as she would have to collect it from another city / Five months later Respondent supplied Applicant with replacement vehicle / Applicant claimed $5000.00 for lost income during period without vehicle, as she was unable to get to work, and balance of contract price waived / Held: Respondent seriously failed to meet obligations under the CGA within reasonable time / It was unreasonable for Applicant to choose not to work for five months rather than to collect courtesy vehicle / Applicant had duty to mitigate loss / Respondent ordered to pay applicant $2,400.00, being $5000.00 less the outstanding amounts due under contract / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA) / Applicant purchased used imported vehicle from Respondent / Applicant discovered issues with vehicle / Applicant claimed $23,269.74 refund of purchase price and maintenance costs / Held: Respondent not in trade / FTA and CCLA do not apply / Applicant has not established Respondent misrepresented vehicle / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased vehicle from Respondent for $3,000 / Car Rental Company repossessed vehicle from Applicant / Respondent hired vehicle from Car Rental Company / Applicant claimed refund of purchase price / Held: Respondent liable to refund payment as Respondent did not have the right to sell goods / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $3,000 / 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 / Applicants entered into a contract whereby the Respondent would provide wedding day photo services / Contract price was agreed at $6,500.00, payable in advance / Respondent contracted to provide photo services such as wedding photos, drone footage, video footage and linen box with prints / Applicant claimed $6,550.00 in compensation for not receiving photo services of an acceptable quality nor in the agreed timeframe / Held: Respondent was in breach of contract by not providing all services as promised / Applicants did not receive linen box with prints or drone footage / Applicants received photos two months after wedding / Some of the photos were of poor quality including photos cutting off bottom of the Applicant’s dress / Applicants also received video footage which they suspected was incomplete / Respondent ordered to pay $2,500.00 in compensation / Claim allowed.

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.