Search Results

1. DI v VR Ltd [2015] NZDT 865 (10 December 2015) [pdf, 126 KB]

   ...collected the boots after the attempt she says they were in an even worse state. [4] DI therefore claims a refund for the re-soling service of $35.00 and consequential losses, being the replacement cost of the velvet boots of $700.00, under the Consumer Guarantees Act (CGA). She also claims the Tribunal filing fee. Issues [5] The issues to determine are: a. Was the damage to the boots caused by AA and if so, have they breached the CGA guarantee of carrying out services with rea...

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

   ...carried out with reasonable care and skill; b. If not, whether the failures were substantial; c. If so, how much is owing under the contract? Was the roofing work carried out with reasonable care and skill? [6] By virtue of s28 of the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993, the work on the roof was required to be carried out with reasonable care and skill. [7] Having considered all the evidence of both parties to be presented about the matter, and had the benefit of hearing the...

3. CL & HD v T Ltd & S Ltd [2023] NZDT 72 (14 February 2023) [pdf, 223 KB]

   ...is therefore liable for any workmanship issues caused by its employees and contractors. Was the roofing work that was done by S Ltd carried out with reasonable care and skill? / Was the roofing work fit for purpose? 5. The provisions of the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) apply. Under the CGA where services are supplied to a consumer (CL and HD are consumers for the purposes of the CGA) there is a guarantee that the service will be: a. Carried out with reasonable care and ski...

4. 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...

5. 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...

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

   ...along with an additional $14,000.00 for distress, inconvenience and time spent having to deal with this matter, including the insurance claim. The total amount sought was $25,000.00. 7. The issues the Tribunal has to consider are: a. Does the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (“CGA”) apply and if yes, has OW Ltd breached the CGA by failing to provide its services with reasonable care and skill? b. If the CGA applies, is NQ entitled to a refund of the amount paid for the servic...

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

   ...of hearing was served to their registered office address and their PO Box number on 27 January 2023). 5. The issues to be determined are: • Did the goods supplied by T Ltd comply with the description made about them as per section 9 of the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (‘CGA’)? • If not, what remedy is available to MI? 6. Section 9 of the CGA states that where goods are supplied by description to a consumer, there is a guarantee that the goods correspond with the descripti...

8. BE v B Ltd [2024] NZDT 364 (30 May 2024) [pdf, 168 KB]

   ...reviewing the evidence that the company had made an error in not researching the limitations presented by the easement, and that this was a breach of the requirement to act with reasonable care and skill and ensure plans were fit for purpose (s28, 29 Consumer Guarantees Act 1993). 4. The Company accepted this. Given the layout of the site, it was also established that there was no value in the work that had been done (s39 CGA). 5. Consequently, the applicant is entitled to a re...

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

   ...for the purchase of the truck. KQ Ltd changed its name to KC in September 2022. 7. The agreement contained a clause signed by K, acknowledging the truck supplied was acquired in trade and that the parties accordingly 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...

10. TB & UB v HF [2023] NZDT 307 (8 June 2023) [pdf, 113 KB]

    ...the puppy without consultation. There was an offer of a replacement. If the puppy had been returned to her, it “would have been treated and cared for by [the respondent] appropriately or otherwise rehomed.” 4) The relevant law is the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (‘the Act’); in particular, the guarantee [section 6] of ‘acceptable quality.’ The issues to be determined by the Tribunal are: a) Was the puppy supplied by the respondent to the applicants of ‘acceptable...