Search Results

1. LU v CE Ltd [2022] NZDT 235 (30 November 2022) [pdf, 115 KB]

   ...they agreed to do. On 15 July LU asked if it could be fixed as she needed to know urgently if she needed to buy a new car in order to get to work. 2. CE Ltd says they had a phone conversation after the 15 July text in which they told LU it would cost around $1000.00 to repair and she told them to go ahead — she denies she was ever given a price and says she did not give instruction to go ahead with a repair, in fact she says she was told it was unlikely to be repairable. 3. LU ha...

2. L Ltd v N Ltd [2022] NZDT 247 (30 November 2022) [pdf, 236 KB]

   ...light of the limited evidence, whilst also acknowledging that L Ltd is entitled to damages, and having regard to the substantial merits and justice of the case, my finding is that N Ltd is to pay L Ltd $15,000.00. 42. The claim also seeks legal costs ($500) and the filing fee for this claim ($180). Per section 42 of the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988, the Tribunal has no power to award costs except in certain limited circumstances (as set out in s 42). None of those circumstances apply in...

3. KB v KP [2023] NZDT 184 (13 June 2023) [pdf, 104 KB]

   ...repairs done. The retailer said the bike had been stolen from them in 2020 and so was not covered by a warranty. The retailer gave the bike back to KB. KB then handed the bike in to the police. KB seeks an order that KP is liable to pay KB the purchase price of the bike which was $8,200.00. 4. The issues to be resolved are: a. Is the bike stolen property? b. If so, is KB entitled to cancel the contract and obtain a refund of the purchase price for the bike from KP? c. If not, do...

4. BK v B Ltd [2021] NZDT 1707 (15 December 2021) [pdf, 150 KB]

   ...NZDT 1707 APPLICANT BK RESPONDENT B Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons [1] BK bought a number of tickets for B Ltd. He has been unable to use some of these flights, and seeks a credit for their price from B Ltd. He also requests an order that B Ltd credit him with the price of any future flights for which he has bought tickets in the event he may be unable to take those flights. [2] BK flies frequently from [City 1], where he lives, t...

5. KM v BE [2022] NZDT 25 (29 April 2022) [pdf, 196 KB]

   ...3. On 22 July 2021, KM filed a claim for the refund with the Disputes Tribunal. 4. BE subsequently offered KM a refund of the $300.00 that she paid for the TV unit if she returned it, but KM requested a payment of $345.00 to cover ‘her costs’. 5. BE refused to pay the extra $45.00. KM then retained the [Television company] unit. 6. KM claimed that even if she had accepted the offer of $300.00, she could not return the unit because of the covid lockdown that took pla...

6. DA v YB [2023] NZDT 685 (20 December 2023) [pdf, 166 KB]

   ...a refund as per the CGA provisions. Because the respondent shipped the goods and it is not known whether they have a ‘shop’ address, the respondent is to collect the scooter from the applicant once they have provided the refund of the purchase price plus shipping costs incurred. 5. I find that DA’s claim for consequential losses does not succeed, because the claimed-for losses, the cost of transporting his daughter to and from school are not sufficiently connected to the failure...

7. MI v T Ltd [2023] NZDT 102 (10 March 2023) [pdf, 114 KB]

   ...far beyond the space, and, in fact, measured closer to 720mm in depth than the described 650mm. 3. MI sought to return the machine to T Ltd who declined his request, treating it as a ‘change of mind’. The claim is therefore for the purchase price of the machine of $1394.35 plus $270.00 consequential losses of storage and/or laundromat time and expenses. 4. T Ltd did not provide a representative name and contact number so that they could participate in today’s teleconference he...

8. WN v BC & BQ Ltd [2023] NZDT 675 (20 November 2023) [pdf, 227 KB]

   ...Sections 32(b) and (c) of the CGA provide for compensation for any reduction in value of the product of the service as well as recovery of other losses resulting from the failure. The best way to assess both these remedies is to look at what actual costs WN incurred in remedying and completing BQ Ltd’s work. 16. Unfortunately, there is not much detail in the form of invoices/receipts for the remedial/finishing work as WN continued her practice with (most) subsequent contractors that...

9. BL v JN Ltd [2023] NZDT 162 (7 June 2023) [pdf, 231 KB]

   ...is to pay the sum of $1,600.00 to BL on or before Wednesday, 28 June 2023. REASONS 1. In December 2022, JN Ltd placed an advertisement on [online selling platform] for the sale of a 2011 [redacted] caravan (“the Caravan”) at an asking price of $42,000.00. JN Ltd was selling the Caravan on behalf of its customer, IU. IU wanted the Caravan gone, so asked JN Ltd to reduce the asking price. By March 2023, the asking price was $32,000.00. 2. In March 2023, BL saw the advertiseme...

10. QN v HO B Ltd [2023] NZDT 236 (22 May 2023) [pdf, 227 KB]

    ...there had been an incident the night before when someone crashed through the Fence and damaged it. 3. QN lodged an insurance claim with B Ltd regarding the damage to the Fence. B Ltd paid out QN for the repair of the Fence, based on a ‘revised pricing’ from U Ltd dated 3 June 2020 which included two options to repair/replace the Fence: a price to replace the Fence with red brick at $4,554.00 (incl GST); and a price to replace the Fence with grey brick for $4,240.28 (incl GST) (“t...