Case studies

Here are some real cases (real names are not used), with real results. But they're not an infallible guide to what could happen, because every case is different. The outcome will depend on the circumstances, the parties involved, and the referee hearing the case.

Moving to Motueka

Jody and Richard Miller hired a moving company to transport their home contents from Wellington to Motueka. They agreed to a quoted price of $3100 for the whole job - packing, moving, unpacking, and taking away the packing materials afterwards.

But things went awry. The packing was poorly done, with some items damaged in transit. Labour to unpack the items was recruited from a local Motueka pub, and parts of the job were left unfinished. Several items were also found to be missing.

Although the goods were carried "at owners' risk", the Disputes Tribunal referee judged the moving company was liable for the damaged and missing items. He ordered them to pay Jody and Richard $1627 within seven days.

Puppy power

Jim Collins paid $1000 to Auckland breeders for a purebred Rottweiler puppy. But, at four months old, the puppy began limping. Diagnosed with a genetic disease called osteochondritis, the dog needed surgery and was also likely to need ongoing treatment and veterinary visits.

The breeders refused to help with the treatment, saying that because the dog wasn't taken to the vet within two days of purchase, it wasn't their problem. Jim took them to the Disputes Tribunal.

Under the Consumer Guarantees Act, a dog (like other goods) must be of acceptable quality and comply with its description.

The referee determined that not only were the breeders liable for the reduction in value of the dog (from $1000 to $500) that resulted from the defect; they were also liable for the costs Jim would incur because of ongoing vet bills (called "foreseeable consequential loss"). The referee ordered the dog breeders to pay Jim $7449 within seven days.

Now Jim is able to give his best friend the treatment he needs.

Computer con

John Lomax bought a new computer in 2002. He also paid for an extended warranty (five years of cover) from a nationwide retailer. But, in late 2006, the computer started having problems and frequently crashed. John downloaded a recommended program from the manufacturer's website to try and fix the problem. Instead his computer crashed, and wouldn't restart.

The retailer (and their insurer) supposedly examined the computer and concluded the problem was software. The retailer refused to fix the problem, saying problems caused by software were not covered by the extended warranty. They even charged John over $50 for the examination before he could get his computer back.

John paid $400 to have the computer fixed elsewhere before going to the Disputes Tribunal.

The referee found several details of the supposed examination of the computer that cast serious doubt on whether it had been examined at all by the retailer or the insurer. Having failed to prove (or even examine) the problem, the insurer was ordered to pay John for all the repairs and inspection fees he'd paid.

With his tongue partly in his cheek, John also claimed for "inconvenience" and "mental distress" - damages he probably deserved, but had no right to under the law. He was denied these.

Totalled telly

Ari Kruger's big-screen TV started having significant problems just eight months after he paid $2999 to a Tauranga retailer for it. The problem wasn't immediately diagnosed, but it progressively got worse and Ari finally contacted the retailer.

The 12-month manufacturer's warranty had expired and the store simply said, "Not our problem". A repairer inspected the TV and quoted over $3000 for the repair - more than the TV's purchase price. That's not on, thought Ari, and lodged a claim with the Disputes Tribunal.

Under the Consumer Guarantees Act, goods have to be of acceptable quality and durability. The referee had little doubt that a $2999 TV should last much longer than 12 months, ordering the store to pay Ari a full refund plus another $150 for the repairer's inspection fee.

And what did the store get for dishonouring their legal obligations? A decidedly defective TV that they'd have to collect at their own cost.