Search Results

1. SU v S Ltd [2025] NZDT 142 (14 February 2025) [pdf, 100 KB]

   ...work since a full refund is available by default and there is no good reason to order that the supplier may retain any portion of the payment. 12. The consumer is also entitled under s 32(c) of the CGA to recover damages for reasonably foreseeable consequential losses. However, although the consumer claimed for a lot of remedial work, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that any of these issues resulted from the supplier’s failure. EG’s report noted that it was unknown whether...

2. GC v DM & PO Ltd [2022] NZDT 64 (7 June 2022) [pdf, 99 KB]

   ...made, PO Ltd (or its agent) may collect the outboard motor from GC at a mutually convenient time. If the outboard motor has not been collected by 7 July 2022, GC may keep or dispose of it as he sees fit. Reasons: 1. On 2 February 2021, GC (the consumer) purchased an outboard motor from PO Ltd (the seller) on Trade Me for $345.00 plus $59.00 freight with a twelve-month warranty. After a few months, the throttle cable broke. The seller (at least initially) denied any liability, and the co...

3. TS v CT Ltd [2019] NZDT 1377 (25 July 2019) [pdf, 236 KB]

   ...refund as well as consequential losses, including third party installation costs and damage to her belongings - her claimed losses exceed $15,000.00 and she has reduced her claim to $14,999.00. 4. The issues to determine are: • Does the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (‘CGA’) apply? • Does the cabin meet the guarantees for goods in the CGA? • Is any failure of guarantee a failure of substantial character? • What remedy, if any, is available to Ms S? Does the...

4. DZ v VA, VAV Ltd & VAVU Ltd [2016] NZDT 921 (9 June 2016) [pdf, 86 KB]

   ...that VAV Ltd have deducted? [10] Under s 32 (c) of the CGA, a consumer is entitled to “obtain damages for any loss resulting from the failure which was reasonably foreseeable as liable to result from the failure”. This is often referred to as consequential loss [11] In this case, I find that DZ’s consequential loss resulting from VAVU Ltd’s breach of the CGA was the amount that VAV Ltd has charged her for their own cancellation fees. I am satisfied that VAV Ltd is entitled...

5. NQ v OW Ltd [2021] NZDT 1604 (28 June 2021) [pdf, 237 KB]

   ...to the actions of its employees at uplift in [City] and the phone call after delivery to [Town]. If the CGA applies, is NQ entitled to a refund of the amount paid for the service of $10,953.15? 26. Section 32 of the CGA deals with options for consumers where a service does not comply with a guarantee. Where the failure cannot be remedied or is of a substantial character, the consumer can, if there is a contract between the supplier and the consumer for the supply of the service, can...

6. RL Ltd v ZL [2019] NZDT 1520 (5 September 2019) [pdf, 160 KB]

   ...benchtop. 2. RL now claims $1,750.00 from ZL. 3. The issues to be determined are: a) Did the benchtop correspond with its description? b) What sum, if any, must ZL pay to RL? Did the benchtop correspond with its description? 4. Under s 9 of the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA), where goods are supplied by description to a consumer, there is a guarantee that the goods correspond with the description. ZL said that he asked for a top-mounted basin and for the tap to be on the bench...

7. MN v N Ltd [2022] NZDT 281 (4 November 2022) [pdf, 192 KB]

   ...Is MN/Insurer entitled to claim compensation for the cost of remedying the damage? 12. Under the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) guarantees are provided for consumers who use services. Section 32(c) provides that if a faulty service causes consequential damage to a consumer’s property, the provider may be liable to pay for the cost of the consequential damage, if it was foreseeable. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities, based on the evidence before me, that the malfu...

8. FB v TY & TYY [2015] NZDT 1049 (10 December 2015) [pdf, 159 KB]

   ...only 6,000 kg, and a reasonable person knowing this would have sought TYY’s confirmation rather than relying on TY’s assurance that it had obtained cover. [3] FB now claims $1,479.60 against both TY and TYY by way of damages for breach of the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA). This sum represents the cost of the ABS replacement less the premium refund and the $250.00 policy excess, plus his $45.00 filing fee. Issues (a) Does this dispute cover issues already determined by t...

9. FD v WJ Ltd & LD Ltd [2015] NZDT 1465 (10 December 2015) [pdf, 147 KB]

   ...of only 6,000 kg, and a reasonable person knowing this would have sought WJ’s confirmation rather than relying on LD’s assurance that it had obtained cover. 3. FD now claims $1,479.60 against both LD and WJ by way of damages for breach of the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA). This sum represents the cost of the ABS replacement less the premium refund and the $250.00 policy excess, plus his $45.00 filing fee. 4. The issues to be determined are: a) Does this dispute cover issues...

10. 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...