Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Respondent provided Applicant a quote for a shed / Applicant accepted quote and paid  Respondent a 50% deposit / Applicant paid remainder of deposit a few weeks later / Despite having paid full contract price, Applicant claimed they did not receive received plans, materials, or anything else related to the shed / Applicant sought to cancel contract and obtain a full refund of purchase price / Held: Respondent breached contract / Applicant entitled to cancel contract and receive a full refund of the price paid, ($10,800.00) / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Respondent approached Applicant about trimming trees on Applicant’s property / Respondent gave verbal quote of $50,000, offered to reduce price to $35,000 / Applicant accepted, Respondent began work / Applicant claimed staff intimidated her into paying $10,000 at end of first day / Work completed and agreed price paid in full / After seeking advice, Applicant believed value of Respondent’s work less than $5000 / Applicant claimed refund of $30,000 / Held: agreement was uninvited direct sales agreement / Respondent therefore obligated to provide agreement in writing and advise Applicant of right to cancel / Respondent breached obligation / Applicant materially prejudiced by Respondent’s breach / Applicant entitled to cancel contract and receive refund / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $30,000 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicant purchased car from Respondent for $8500 / Contract included clause allowing car to be returned for refund if inspected by mechanic within week of purchase and found to be not as advertised, requiring repairs over $500 / Applicant had car inspected, number of issues discovered / Applicant tried to return car / Respondent unwilling to give full refund, claimed issues were minor / Applicant claimed $8818 for full purchase price, cost of mechanical check, refund of filing fee / Held: car not ‘well maintained’ as advertised / Cam belt issues alone required repairs over $500 / Respondent repudiated contract by refusing to accept return of car / Applicant entitled to return car and receive refund / Applicant not entitled to compensation for mechanical check or filing fee / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $8500 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant bought B Ltd’s earbuds / Applicant noticed that right earbud kept dying after short use and was not charging correctly / Applicant claimed refund of purchase price / Held: CGA states that products should be safe, of acceptable quality and free of defects / Applicant’s earbuds have not lasted a reasonable period / Applicant entitled to refund of purchase price / Claim allowed / Respondent to pay Applicant $334.99.

Contract / Dispute over work done by Applicant for Respondent / Applicant sought $990.00 for work / Respondent claimed no agreement to do any work and that no money was owed / No written evidence of agreement / Held: no agreement as to price / Job done for a friend whilst socialising / Applicant not entitled to charge a trade mark-up for materials or labour / Applicant entitled to paid for materials obtained for the work / Invoice for materials for an wholesaler / Implausible that Applicant would have ordered parts without believing there was an agreement that he would carry out work / Crimp tool listed on the invoice not a part provided for Respondent / Applicant entitled to $470.00 for materials, invoice minus the crimp tool / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Money Claims Act 2016 / Applicant engaged Respondent to supply metal windows and matching double door / Applicant paid 50% deposit / Building delay / Price increase due to inflation and availability changes / Applicant claimed Respondent obliged to perform contract at quoted price / Respondent declined to proceed / Applicant proposed repayment of deposit plus sum for damages / Held: Respondent's terms and conditions applied / No repudiation of contract by Respondent / Respondent not entitled to protect Applicant from price increase / Applicant not entitled to claim damages in form of interest or otherwise / Reasonable for Respondent to pay interest based on failure to repay original deposit money immediately upon agreeing refund was payable / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $274.49 / Claim allowed in part.

Consumer / Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased trailer from Respondent / Applicant alleged design of trailer is defective and as a result the trailer is sustaining damage when being towed even without load / Applicant claimed refund of purchase price / Held: no evidence to suggest that problem is due to failure of any particular component / Warranty does not cover type of defect alleged / No proven breach of condition that goods must be of merchantable quality / No legal basis to require Respondent to refund purchase price / Claim dismissed.

[2023] NZEmpC 113 Snowling v Scott Technology Ltd (Interim Judgment of Judge K G Smith, 26 July 2023) APPLICATION FOR STAY - contemporaneous applications for stay and security for costs present difficulty - stay granted on an interim basis until security for costs is argued.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased tractor duals from Respondent / Applicant was to pick up duals from Respondent’s yard but they had been stolen / Applicant and Respondent received advice that the other party was the owner and so could not make insurance claim / Applicant claimed refund of $2,000 purchase price / Held: Applicant was the owner of duals at the time they were stolen / Insurable risk passed at same time ownership passed / Respondent not required to compensate applicant for breach of contract because no breach has occurred / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased car from Respondent / Issue arose with knocking noise in vehicle’s steering rack / Respondent paid cost of second hand replacement rack / Knocking continued, Applicant had car checked again / Mechanic reported car would fail WOF, but further report stated car would pass WOF, noting knock as warning for potential future wear / Applicant considered car unwarrantable, requested refund / Respondent instead offered repair with another second hand replacement rack / Applicant consented but said repair made no difference / Applicant claimed cost of fitting new steering rack, or refund of purchase price, plus additional expenses / Held: Applicant did not prove car was not of acceptable quality / Preponderance of evidence established that slight knock was normal for this model of car, did not prevent its safety, drivability, or warrantability / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Limitation Act 2010 / Respondent rented caravan from applicant / Respondent didn’t pay for caravan rental and delivered it with damaged roof vent / Applicant claims cost of rental and cost of damage repair / Held: implied term of contract that respondent pays reasonable costs of repair / Respondent breached legally binding agreement / Claim allowed / Respondent to pay applicant $1,955.00.

Contract / Applicants purchased a house from Respondent / After settlement, Applicants discovered toilet did not work properly /  Plumber found drain was blocked by tree roots / Applicants asked Respondent to pay for repairs / Respondent did not pay / Applicants claimed toilet repair costs of $607.89 and filing fee / / Held: more likely than not that Respondent was responsible for repair cost / Pipes had tree roots interfering with them which had to be removed before pipes could be repaired / Suggested problem with the toilet was imminent and not in reasonable working order / Respondent breached their obligation by not paying for repairs / Tribunal unable to award costs for filing fee / Respondent ordered to pay Applicants $607.89 / Claim granted.