Search Results

1. LX v GQ Ltd [2021] NZDT 1696 (31 May 2021) [pdf, 212 KB]

   ...not the case and that the damage was caused by the tip of a drawstring torn from a pair of shorts during the wash cycle, as originally stated by their technician. 4. The Applicant brings this claim pursuant to the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) and seeks a refund of the $1,299.00 purchase price of the washing machine and the costs of having to go the laundromat in the meantime in the amount of $416.00, for a total claim of $1,715.00. 5. The Respondent argues that the issues with...

2. OX v SN [2021] NZDT 1581 (3 August 2021) [pdf, 153 KB]

   ...trailer, $160.00 for several trips to from [Town 2] to [Town 1] and $180.00 for the Disputes Tribunal filing fee. The total amount sought is $17,236.23. 11. The issues the Tribunal has to consider are: a. Does the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (“CGA”) apply to this sale? CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 6 b. If yes, did SN breach the CGA by selling a jet ski that was not of acceptable quality? c. If the CGA does not apply, did SN misrepresent the jet ski when he said...

3. AFT v Tower Insurance Ltd [2022] CEIT-2022-0001 [pdf, 271 KB]

   ...that the repairs to the house are completed to the policy standard and that this obligation continues notwithstanding the passage of time. The Trust also claims that the duty to pay for the repair exists under the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) and continues until the house is fixed to the policy standard. In addition to this cause of action, the Trust says it is able to claim for breach of the insurance contract and breach of the Repair Contract if the repairs prove to be defec...

4. XQ v T Ltd [2022] NZDT 85 (8 February 2022) [pdf, 214 KB]

   ...preparing for the hearing. 2. This is a claim for consequential losses and costs incurred in the amount of $187.61 as a result of the supply of an alleged faulty item. 3. The issues were as follows: a. Does the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) apply? b. If yes, has there been a breach of the guarantee of acceptable quality in the CGA? c. If so, what remedies are available, including consequential losses? d. If the answer to question 1 is no, then has the contract been breach...

5. ND v LB Ltd [2023] NZDT 458 (15 August 2023) [pdf, 188 KB]

   ...also found that the shade cloth was not of acceptable quality and LB Ltd said that it would remediate the shade cloth at its own expense when it received payment. ND was entitled to this remediation under section 18 of Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA). 3. ND did not make payment by 14 March 2022, and rather than have the order enforced through the Collections Unit of the District Court LB Ltd employed a private debt collection firm to chase the debt. By late October 2022 ND had pai...

6. IW v K Ltd [2024] NZDT 609 (8 August 2024) [pdf, 176 KB]

   ...assessment. Following the assessment, CU advised that the device had suffered from liquid ingress, which was not covered by the warranty. 7. IW responded by referring to the implied guarantees under the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993. CU claimed the CGA was excluded because the device had been misused. It referred to the [manufacturer] website, which says the water resistant feature is not permanent. Law 8. The law of contract and the CGA apply. The CGA provides for a guarante...

7. KI & GI v Q Ltd [2023] NZDT 152 (3 July 2023) [pdf, 226 KB]

   ...acceptable quality and/or not reasonably fit of purpose, and/or were the services that Q Ltd provided to KI and/or GI not carried out with reasonable care and skill and/or not reasonably fit for purpose? 8. The Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (“the CGA”) applies. The CGA implies certain guarantees when goods and services are supplied by a supplier to a consumer in trade, including that the goods will be of acceptable quality (s6 of the CGA), and reasonably fit for any particular purp...

8. GL v SOO Ltd [2018] NZDT 1093 (15 June 2018) [pdf, 116 KB]

   ...acknowledged that, at some point, the 400sqft size noted on the website had been incorrect, but did not accept that a refund was warranted. [3] Ms GL claims a refund of the $4850.00 purchase price of the tent under the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (‘CGA’). Issues [4] The issues to determine are: a. Did the SOO tent comply with any description given and was it of acceptable quality? b. What remedy, if any, is available to Ms GL? Did the SOO tent comply with any description...

9. QL v E Ltd [2023] NZDT 752 (1 December 2023) [pdf, 182 KB]

   ...claim. 4. The warranty claim was declined as it was determined that the damage was externally caused and not due to a product defect nor a design or manufacturing defect. 5. QL demanded a replacement jacket under the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA), which E Ltd refused but E Ltd did offer QL a replacement jacket at cost, which QL refused. 6. QL brings this claim under the CGA for $1,350.00. 7. The issues are: Was the jacket defective pursuant to the CGA? Is QL entitled to...

10. DI v VR Ltd [2015] NZDT 865 (10 December 2015) [pdf, 126 KB]

    ...the attempt she says they were in an even worse state. [4] DI therefore claims a refund for the re-soling service of $35.00 and consequential losses, being the replacement cost of the velvet boots of $700.00, under the Consumer Guarantees Act (CGA). She also claims the Tribunal filing fee. Issues [5] The issues to determine are: a. Was the damage to the boots caused by AA and if so, have they breached the CGA guarantee of carrying out services with reasonable care and skill?...