18392 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 578 APPLICANT MD RESPONDENT U Ltd The Tribunal orders: U Ltd is to pay $19,814.50 to MD by 20 August 2024. Reasons Did U Ltd fail to supply a service with reasonable care and skill? 1. Part 4 of the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) provides guarantees for consumers who are supplied services in trade. Section 28 provides
...Did EP breach his duty of care by driving KT’s van and damaging it? (b) If so, what loss can KT show he has incurred that he is entitled to be compensated for? Did EP breach his duty of care by driving KT’s van and damaging it? 4. The law of negligence provides that we all have a duty of care to ensure that we do not cause harm to another person or their property. If a person can reasonably foresee that someone’s property may be damaged as a result of our conduct, then if...
...contract must have an offer that is validly accepted for good consideration and the parties must have an intention to create legal relations. A contract may be verbal, written or a combination of the two. However, under the principles of contract law, the terms must be clear, certain and accepted by the parties to be enforceable. Agreements made between people in a close familial relationship are generally not enforceable contracts because the presumption is that the parties did not inten...
...the puppy. The issue [5] The question for me to decide is whether the applicants are entitled to succeed in their claim, or whether KI’s defence of negligence on their part entitles him to withhold payment for the work that they did. The law [6] If KT and PD were responsible for the death of the puppy by negligent conduct on their part, KI would be justified in refusing to pay them. They owed a duty to provide their services with reasonable CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of...
Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 526 APPLICANT MQ RESPONDENT N Inc The Tribunal orders: N Inc is to pay MQ $106.00 within 30 days of the date of this order. Reasons: 1. In June 2023, MQ entered into an agreement with N Inc to hire their premises for her son’s 21st birthday. 2. After the event, MQ advised N Inc that she was unhappy with several things on the night of
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 581 APPLICANT EN APPLICANT QN RESPONDENT C Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. EN and QN purchased a second hand grandfather clock for $1100.00 from C Ltd which trades as CD. They allege the clock is not able to be repaired and they wish to return the clock and receive a refund of $1100.00. 2.
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 583 APPLICANT GM RESPONDENT D Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. GM purchased a [dress] from D Ltd in October 2023. She wore the dress for a very short time and noticed a significant tear along a seam. She informed D Ltd and the dress was replaced along with a $100 voucher. 2. The replacement dress arr
...are the reasonable costs associated with the damage? 3. SS did not attend the hearing conducted by teleconference however the Tribunal is entitled to rely on the available evidence. Did SS cause damage to the Applicants property? 4. The law of torts applies. This includes damage caused from trespass by an unlawful interference to property. 5. In the absence of evidence to the contrary I accept the Applicant’s account of the event as set out in paragraph 1 and I find tha...
...nothing to say to him” and the call was disconnected. 6. The absence of a party does not prevent a claim from being heard and determined. Did KI and L Ltd engage in misleading or deceptive conduct in their dealings with QI? 7. The relevant law is the Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA). Section 9 FTA provides a general prohibition of misleading and deceptive conduct in trade. 8. I find that both KI and L Ltd engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct for the following reasons: CI...
...[vets]. 8. IJ’s claim seeks payment of that amount. 9. The hearing took place in [Town] on 17 October 2024. IJ attended the hearing and was assisted by her daughter NG. There was no appearance by BS. Findings 10. The relevant law is the Dog Control Act 1996. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 3 11. Section 63 of the Dog Control Act states that the owner of a dog is liable for damage caused by the dog. 12. Section 2 of the Dog Control Act defines “owner” a...