Search Results

1. SX v SD Ltd [2022] NZDT 208 (24 November 2022) [pdf, 94 KB]

   ...contractor, although that is not a reasonably foreseeable loss and cannot be recovered. SD Ltd does not dispute refunding the bond. Was the cabin of acceptable quality and fit for purpose? 7. The Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 applies. Sections 6 and 7 CGA provide for an implied guarantee in all consumer contracts that goods supplied will be of acceptable quality. The standard is based on the expectations of a reasonable consumer; but can also take into account the range of chara...

2. KL v BD [2023] NZDT 610 (20 November 2023) [pdf, 191 KB]

   ...photographs? II. Were the photographs taken fit for purpose? III. Should BD refund some or all of the $899.00 to KL? Did BD apply reasonable skill and care to the photography and editing of the photographs? 6. The Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) implies into all consumer contracts a set of minimum standards (guarantees) for goods and services when they are supplied in trade to consumers. 7. The question of whether BD applied reasonable skill and care to the composition of t...

3. WH v SS Ltd [2019] NZDT 1459 (26 March 2019) [pdf, 218 KB]

   ...1962 and the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993, the issues I have to consider are: a. Is SSH liable to WH for the cost of her pants under the Innkeepers Act 1962 (“IKA”)? b. If yes, is WH entitled to $179.00? c. If no, did SSH breach the CGA by failing to provide accommodation with reasonable care and skill? d. If yes, is SSH liable to WH for $179.00 for the loss of her pants? Is SSH liable to WH for the cost of her pants under the Innkeepers Act 1962? 6. Section 4 of...

4. O Ltd & P Ltd v UU [2023] NZDT 474 (4 September 2023) [pdf, 174 KB]

   ...seller’s refusal to pay the panel beater for the boot damage. However, the MVDT found that there was no agreement for the seller to pay the bill, and there was no obligation for the seller to remedy the boot damage under the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA). The MVDT decision issued on 7 July 2022 concluded that the buyer was not entitled to reject the car. The MVDT did not discuss the storage issues, which may not have been raised, but would in any case fall outside the MVDT’s limit...

5. BQ & LI v J Ltd [2023] NZDT 519 (13 October 2023) [pdf, 208 KB]

   ...construction carried with reasonable care and skill and was the outcome reasonably fit for purpose? 5. It was undisputed that there was no contractual relationship between the parties, and nor did the Applicants acquire the services of the company, so the CGA does not apply. Instead the Applicants rely on the implied warranties under the Building Act 2004. 6. Section 362I of the Building Act sets out the implied warranties that apply to a new build. These include that the building w...

6. CT & ID v S Ltd [2022] NZDT 7 (2 March 2022) [pdf, 153 KB]

   ...applicants were informed that the inspection was limited to a visual inspection and would be performed under NZS4306:2005. Has the inspection been carried out with reasonable care and skill? 9. Sections 28 and 29 of the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) provide that where services are supplied to a consumer there is a guarantee that the service will be carried out with reasonable care and skill. The result of those services will be fit for its particular purpose, and of such a natu...

7. CN v C Ltd [2022] NZDT 57 (18 February 2022) [pdf, 146 KB]

   ...regarding DEF? 11. As mentioned, although I have determined the claim on the basis of the first issue, my view on the second issue is relevant to that determination. I consider that the rental company had a duty under the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) to warn its customers regarding DEF, as part of providing its service with reasonable care and skill. I am persuaded that it had such a duty for a number of reasons: a) DEF being mistaken for diesel is a relatively new hazard of which...

8. DT v-S Ltd [2019] NZDT 1510 (30 September 2019) [pdf, 96 KB]

   ...100% satisfied” and the statement above the Terms & Conditions allowing “risk-free” trial. 9. The offer of a trial period suggests that the right to return goes beyond the minimum statutory rights under the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) to return goods that are not “fit for purpose” in an objective sense. The references to 100% satisfaction and even “love” support a broad interpretation of the words “fit for purpose” in the Terms & Conditions, allowing retu...

9. QL v GT Ltd [2022] NZDT 129 (9 September 2022) [pdf, 96 KB]

   ...decision include the following: a) As a business dealing with the public, GT Ltd has a duty to be aware of BEC fraud and to take precautions against it, and/or to warn its customers. This duty arises out of s 28 of the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA), which requires services supplied to a consumer to be provided with reasonable care and skill. b) The extent of a business’s cybersecurity is entirely within the control and knowledge of that business and its chosen IT consultants, no...

10. B Ltd v UE & SE [2023] NZDT 517 (2 October 2023) [pdf, 187 KB]

    ...nature of the services, reasonable consumer expectations and particular circumstances are all relevant. 11. Having given careful consideration to the evidence from the parties, I find that the applicant was in breach of the guarantees for the CGA as the services were not provided with reasonable care and skill, and the concept plans were not fit for the particular purpose made known by the respondents for the following reasons. (a) The applicant relied the original house plans/de...