Search Results

1. HLL Ltd v RO [2018] NZDT 1133 (6 July 2018) [pdf, 88 KB]

   ...reasonable consumer would not have proceeded with the work had they known what would ensue (s36). There was sufficient damage caused, and errors made, that this test is met. The roofing work can be repaired, but this is a difficult and time-consuming task that could cause damage to the roofing iron. How much is owing under the contract? [17] Given that substantial failures occurred, Mrs RO is entitled to a refund of all sums paid unless it is established that she has re...

2. NN v EE [2024] NZDT 736 (14 October 2024) [pdf, 177 KB]

   ...families, now claims $1,642.50 from EE, representing a full refund together with $100.00 for travel expenses and $59.00 for the Tribunal filing fee. 3. The issues to be determined are: a) Was the accommodation reasonably fit for purpose? b) Were the consumers entitled to cancel the contract? c) What sum, if any, must the supplier pay to the consumers? Was the accommodation reasonably fit for purpose? 4. Accommodation in a holiday house is a service ordinarily supplied to consumers...

3. VL v U Ltd & LF Ltd [2023] NZDT 671 (6 December 2023) [pdf, 114 KB]

   ...However, I am satisfied that prior to it being taken to LF Ltd for repair, it did not suffer from this particular problem with the flexiplate, and that it is more likely than not that this issue was caused by the work LF Ltd did on the car. 16. The Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) provides guarantees to consumers that services they receive must be provided with reasonable care and skill, and that they must be fit for purpose. Reasonable skill refers to the technical know-how required...

4. BK & BH v FF [2023] NZDT 68 (31 March 2023) [pdf, 210 KB]

   ...this regard given the BK and BH booked seats together (when they purchased the tickets), being seated together (for the purposes of s29) was the result the BK and BH desired to achieve. BK and BH did not get that result. 24. Loss of enjoyment is a consequential loss. Consequential losses can be awarded under the CGA in some situations. 25. However, loss of enjoyment is not a consequential loss of the type contemplated under the CGA. This is because loss of enjoyment is not a finan...

5. KI v ST & C Ltd [2024] NZDT 585 (10 September 2024) [pdf, 176 KB]

   ...now claims $480.00 as he remedied the missing parts himself. KI asked for a partial refund, but C Ltd’s policy was that any partial refund was to be returned to X. 3. The issue for the Tribunal to determine is whether there is a breach of the Consumer Guarantees Act 1988 and whether KI is entitled to some compensation? whether there is a breach of the Consumer Guarantees Act 1988 4. The relevant law is the Consumer Guarantees Act. The Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 implies guar...

6. TZ & AS v TQ [2024] NZDT 220 (8 March 2024) [pdf, 210 KB]

   ...agreed. In addition they acknowledged and I accept that they then agreed in August/September to a new carport for $5,800.00, which was paid but subsequently refunded. 5. In addition to these terms, where a supplier in trade provides services to a consumer the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) applies. This Act set outs guarantees, including those detailed below, and specific remedies. Did TQ fail to exercise reasonable care and skill and/or to produce an outcome that was reasonably...

7. TI v N Ltd [2019] NZDT 1438 (30 September 2019) [pdf, 200 KB]

   ...in the Disputes Tribunal) towards the cost of the remedial work. 4. The issues to be determined are: a. Did BCS carry out its inspection services with reasonable skill and care? b. If not, what remedies are available to TI under the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993? c. Is TI entitled to remedial costs? Did BCS provide its inspection services with “reasonable skill and care”? CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 6 5. Section 28 of the Consumer Guarantees Act 19...

8. NL & UN v ME [2022] NZDT 88 (8 June 2022) [pdf, 180 KB]

   ...for the particular purpose? b. If not, what is the remedy? Did ME exercise reasonable care and skill when he produced the pre-inspection report and was the report reasonably fit for the particular purpose? 4. The law of contract and the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 apply. Sections 28 and 29 of the CGA provide guarantees to a consumer that the supplier will carry out its service with reasonable care and skill and that the outcome will be fit for purpose. 5. ME’s position is...

9. OP v U Ltd & B Ltd [2024] NZDT 823 (15 October 2024) [pdf, 134 KB]

   ...is the sole director. I am satisfied that B Ltd provided the storage services to OP and so I have joined B Ltd as a respondent in this claim. 5. The issues to be determined are: a. What were the terms of the agreement? b. Did B Ltd breach the Consumer Guarantees Act? c. What if any remedy is appropriate? d. Is OP liable in any amount to B Ltd? What were the terms of the agreement? 6. I find that it is most likely that there was a contract between OP and B Ltd under which it wa...

10. KQ v UN [2023] NZDT 127 (10 May 2023) [pdf, 104 KB]

    ...ongoing costs of treating the problem in question. The respondent says that as soon as she was contacted by the applicant with respect to the problem that has lead to this claim, a refund was offered (by telephone). 4) The relevant law is the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993; in particular, the guarantee [s.6] that a good supplied to a consumer should be of ‘acceptable quality.’ The issues to be determined by the Tribunal are: a) Is the dog sold by the respondent to the applicant...