Search Results

1. K Ltd v V Ltd [2023] NZDT 598 (27 November 2023) [pdf, 207 KB]

   ...agreed the provisions of the Consumer Guarantees Act (“CGA”) would not apply and that it was fair and reasonable that K’s business was bound by that clause. 8. Clause 9.1 of the agreement purported to limit any liability of V LTD for any consequential, indirect or special loss, damage or injury of any kind arising directly or indirectly from any breach of V LTD’s obligations under or cancellation of the agreement or negligence, misrepresentation, or other act or omission on...

2. DE v UC Ltd [2024] NZDT 203 (17 January 2024) [pdf, 96 KB]

   ...and care and at section 29, a guarantee that they will be fit for purpose. If either guarantee is not met by the service provider, the remedies may include a refund of the price paid for the service, and in some circumstances, compensation for consequential loss. 9. In this instance I am satisfied on the evidence before me that the service provided to DE by KH breached the guarantees in the CGA as the services were not provided with reasonable skill and care, and nor was the fi...

3. LG v OE [2023] NZDT 48 (30 January 2023) [pdf, 199 KB]

   ...acceptable quality? b. If not, was it remedied within a reasonable time? c. If the failure was not remedied, can LG reject the spa pool and obtain a refund? CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 Was the spa pool of acceptable quality? 7. The Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (“CGA”) applies when goods are supplied to a consumer in trade. I am satisfied that OE was “in trade” for the purposes of the CGA as LG described him as undertaking a business of buying old spa pools,...

4. BC v ST Ltd [2024] NZDT 381 (2 May 2024) [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...reasonable care and skill and was the product of the service fit for purpose? • What remedy is available to BC? Did ST Ltd provide its service with reasonable care and skill and was the product of the service fit for purpose? 5. The Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (‘CGA’) provides statutory guarantees to consumers, the relevant guarantees in this case being that a supplier will carry out its services with reasonable care and skill and that the product resulting from a servic...

5. US Ltd v NH [2021] NZDT 1545 (16 September 2021) [pdf, 182 KB]

   ...skill and was the roof fit for purpose? b. If not, what is the remedy? c. If so, how much is owed under the contract? Did US Ltd carry out the roofing work with reasonable care and skill and was the roof fit for purpose? 5. Section 28 of the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) provides that a supplier must exercise reasonable care and skill. Broadly “reasonable” means what a reasonable consumer would expect in the circumstances, including having regard to the price and any disc...

6. NT v J Ltd [2023] NZDT 489 (26 September 2023) [pdf, 183 KB]

   ...be determined are: a. Did the company carry out the services with reasonable care and skill? b. If not, what sum, if any, must the company pay? Did the company carry out the services with reasonable care and skill? 4. Section 28 of the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) provides that where services are supplied to a consumer, there is a guarantee that the service will be carried out with reasonable care and skill. 5. There was no dispute that the bus departed [Town 2] with...

7. MD v KM Ltd [2020] NZDT 1328 (30 January 2020) [pdf, 242 KB]

   ...3. The issues to be resolved are: (a) Did the Facebook advertisement accurately describe A for the purposes of the Fair Trading Act 1986? (b) Was A of “acceptable quality” and “fit for purpose” as those terms are defined in the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993? (c) If not, are the breaches substantial? (d) If so, is Ms D able to reject the pony and get a refund, plus consequential losses? Did the Facebook advertisement accurately describe A for the purposes of the...

8. IE v X Ltd [2024] NZDT 587 (12 August 2024) [pdf, 262 KB]

   ...and care? 4. X Ltd acted for IE’s father, NE, not for IE himself. Nonetheless, X Ltd owed a duty of care to IE to provide an accurate and competent EPA service. This duty arises under both common law principles of negligence and under the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA). As any loss in this case was purely economic and did not involve damage to property, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to consider this claim as a cause of action in negligence (s10(1)(c) Disputes T...

9. 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...

10. 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...