18392 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 374 APPLICANT KT APPLICANT NT RESPONDENT N Ltd The Tribunal orders: N Ltd is to pay $2,587.50 to KT and NT by the 21st June 2024. Reasons 1. KT and NT contracted N Ltd to lay concrete at their home. Whilst laying concrete on the driveway adjacent to the garage, concrete was splashed on to the new garage door. The same day as the p
...Did KK exercise reasonable care when driving in the roundabout? (ii) Did SM exercise reasonable care when driving in the roundabout? (iii) If both are responsible, in what proportion are they liable? 5. All drivers owe a duty arising under the law of tort to take reasonable care to drive in a manner that does not cause harm to other drivers. When determining whether a driver has breached this duty, the obligations placed on drivers by the Land Transport (Road User) Rules 2004 are a r...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 612 APPLICANT LB APPLICANT TB RESPONDENT BU Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. The Applicants purchased a kitset cabin to be installed on their property. The Applicants state that the cabin is not sealed sufficiently to be weather tight and seek and order for compensation on the basis that the ca
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 603 APPLICANT NC RESPONDENT K Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim by NC against K Ltd is dismissed. Reasons 1. In 2021 NC (the applicant) purchased a [laptop] from K Ltd (the respondent). In 2024 the laptop began to malfunction including freezing and not turning on. The applicant now brings a claim against the respondent for a refund
...charged by parking companies are liquidated damages, or a set penalty for breach which may or may not exceed actual loss. Liquidated damages in a contract may not be enforceable if they amount to a penalty, which, generally speaking has been the law since the case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor Co Ltd [1915] AC 79 was decided in about 1915. The Courts have been reviewing this principle in recent cases, such that for example, where a party has a legitimate interes...
...leak? If so, is I Ltd liable to pay for the cost of replacing the engine? Or, were the pistons cracked before the head leak was repaired? If so, is Q Ltd liable to pay $30,000.00 towards the engine replacement? 6. The general principles of the law of contract apply to this dispute. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 3 7. I find that I Ltd did not damage the pistons when it replaced the head gasket. There is no independent evidence to persuade me that the replacement of the he...
...picked up the various items. If the item had not been given to QC, then the Respondent is in breach of the contract between the parties for the sale and purchase of the wrench and is liable to pay damages, which is the purchase price paid, under the law of contract. If QC lost the item after receiving it, the Respondent is not liable to pay anything. 6. QC’s evidence was that he had arranged to call into the Respondent’s premises to pick up the items when he was in [City] (he...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 527 APPLICANT FU RESPONDENT IX The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. The applicant purchased a [puppy] from the respondent for $2,500.00 which sadly became ill, and was put down by her vet, within 2 weeks of purchase. 2. The applicant filed a claim seeking a refund for the purchase price of the puppy ($2,500) pl
...that this process is preventing and pre-determining matters. He has categorically advised in the email that he will not comply with the directions. [12] Given that response I now determine what is to happen with this application. Te Ture The Law [13] The applicant has sought an injunction in the application. However, no application pursuant to s 19 has been filed for that to occur. In addition, despite Mr Hovell asking that the application be set down urgently, no evidence has...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 564 APPLICANT B Ltd RESPONDENT P Ltd The Tribunal orders: P Ltd is to pay B Ltd $20,273.00 on or before 16 August 2024. Reasons 1. On 18 September 2023, B Ltd purchased a [vehicle] from P Ltd for $22,995.00. Five months and two weeks later B Ltd took the van to get a WOF. It failed the WOF due to structural corrosion. The van requires