Search Results

1. SI & XQ v G Ltd [2022] NZDT 40 (14 February 2022) [pdf, 119 KB]

   ...so, what is the remedy and can the filing fee be recovered? What were the terms of the contract and was the contract frustrated? 4. There was no dispute that the terms of the contract agreed were set out in the client confirmation booking form of 14 January 2019. Nor was there any dispute that the terms provided that where the client cancels the contract deposits are non-refundable and where the cancellation is within 30 days of the event the full payment is not refundable....

2. MC v Q Association [2024] NZDT 317 (24 April 2024) [pdf, 214 KB]

   ...Association and were appointed as its representatives. Issues 10. The issues I need to determine are: (a) Did the Q Association engage MC to carry out work regarding the Extractor Fan in exchange for a fee so that there was a contract of service formed? If so, has the Q Association breached that contract by refusing to pay the Invoice? (b) If there was no contract of service, should the Q Association pay MC for the work he completed regarding the Extractor Fan under the law of q...

3. KH & KX v MX [2022] NZDT 63 (5 June 2022) [pdf, 112 KB]

   ...Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA)). These provisions then reinforce the position of buyer beware in private sales except in limited circumstances. 8. If the buyer can establish that a misrepresentation was made in the process of the contract being formed, then the buyer can make a claim. Section 35 of the CCLA provides that when a buyer has been induced to enter a contract by a misrepresentation, whether innocent or fraudulent that person is entitled to damages as if the representation w...

4. F Ltd v O Ltd [2023] NZDT 374 (28 July 2023) [pdf, 117 KB]

   ...work at all. He rejected the suggestion the two of them had ever been friends. He later said that BQ had come to his premises to drink kava, and on that occasion did some work on some light fittings. That work took at most about an hour and was performed while drinking kava in between. 5. BQ, as the applicant, bears the burden of proving his claim on the balance of probabilities. It needs to be ‘more likely than not’ that his version of events is true. 6. BQ acknowledged that...

5. H Ltd v QH [2023] NZDT 771 (14 December 2023) [pdf, 149 KB]

   ...has paid $9,600.00, as it forgot to account for the $1,000.00 garage deduction when calculating payment. In other words, it has paid more than I have calculated. However, as the amount paid is less that the original budget, and because U Ltd has not formally counterclaimed for a refund, no further adjustment is required. Referee: J P Smith Date: 14 December 2023 Page 4 of 4 Information for Parties Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe...

6. UD v TT [2025] NZDT 5 (9 April 2025) [pdf, 136 KB]

   ...($11,869.09 to write off the car based on a pre-accident value of $13,000.00 and a wreck value of $2,901.87). B Ltd has therefore claimed the lesser amount of $10,829.57 which would have been the cost had the car been repaired. 18. TT took the information provided by B Ltd to a local mechanic who suggested that the pre-accident value of UD’s car would be around $6,500 to $8,900.00, and that therefore the amount claimed was too high. 19. However, B Ltd have provided a valuation o...

7. UE & QO v CO Ltd [2023] NZDT 159 (23 March 2023) [pdf, 116 KB]

   Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 159 APPLICANT UE and QO RESPONDENT CO Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. This order should be read with that dated 27/10/23. 2. This dispute had its origins back in 2012 when the UE and QO’s (the applicants) home in [Street] suffered devastating and catastrophic damage in a natural disaster, a land s...

8. KW v T Ltd [2024] NZDT 195 (28 March 2024) [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...infiltration incident, where he conceded that he may have missed a scheduled spray. 5. To support his claim that the insect infiltrations were caused by poor workmanship in the installation of the unit, KW provided evidence from B Ltd in the form of an email that states in part ‘The entry point of the sensor beam wire which came in through the back of the control box was not sealed. That is where the slug could have got in and shorted the board, and as for the spraying of insec...

9. NC v KU [2023] NZDT 425 (4 September 2023) [pdf, 186 KB]

   ...car the car works fine? 5. I find that KU did not make a misrepresentation when she meet with NC and clarified that the cars works fine, and that money would need to be spent on the car to get it road legal. I make this finding on the following information: a. KU stated she informed NC that the car worked, and that money would need to be spent to get it road legal. She said NC kept making low offers to buy the car and when doing so he would say that he didn’t know if there was any...

10. DI v UM [2024] NZDT 727 (23 September 2024) [pdf, 184 KB]

    ...duress to accept the quote? 6. DI suggested that she was pressured into accepting the quote. She gave examples of UM taking her for coffee and making several contacts with her about accepting the quote. These examples given by DI are acceptable forms of soliciting for business. They do not reach the level of ‘duress’. Duress is the imposition of unacceptable pressure by threats that force a person to enter a contract. Duress has two fundamental elements: first, there must be the exe...