|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
New Zealand Motor Vehicles Disputes Tribunal |
Last Updated: 28 June 2024
|
BETWEEN ROGER HEALY
First Applicant
BETWEEN ALEXANDER HEALY
Second Applicant
AND TE RAPA WHOLESALE CARS
2009 LIMITED
First Respondent
|
||
|
|
AND
|
BRETT NOWELL
Second respondent
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
MEMBERS OF TRIBUNAL
|
||
|
D Watson, Adjudicator
|
||
|
S Haynes, Assessor
|
||
|
|
||
|
HEARING at Auckland on 23 May 2024 (by audio-visual link)
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
APPEARANCES
|
||
|
R Healy, first applicant
A Healy, second applicant
J Haitana, for the first respondent |
||
|
B Nowell, the second respondent
|
||
|
DATE OF DECISION 4 June 2024
|
||
|
|
||
_________________________________________________________________
DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
REASONS
Introduction
[1] Alexander Healy claims he purchased a 2004 Nissan Navarra[1] from Te Rapa Wholesale Cars 2009 Limited (TWC) on 22 November 2023 for $5,000. The odometer reading at that time was 182,365 km. He claims that the engine has a serious fault and is uneconomic to repair. He is wanting an order for rejection of the vehicle and refund of the purchase price.
[2] Initially, the claim was commenced by Roger Healy, Alexander Healy’s father. Alexander was only 16 years old at the time of purchase. To avoid any confusion, in this decision, I refer to Alexander Healy as Alexander and Roger Healy as Roger.
[3] It was not clear from the application whether Roger was claiming he purchased the vehicle or whether Alexander purchased the vehicle. Following initial discussions between the parties at the commencement of the hearing, an order was made by consent joining Alexander into the application as an applicant.
[4] TWC says it was not the seller of the vehicle, regardless of who purchased it. It claims the vehicle was sold by one of its employees, Brett Nowell, and that it was a private sale which is not covered by the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (the CGA). Mr Nowell also says this was a private sale. He says the vehicle was sold to Alexander, not Roger.
The issues
[5] The issues requiring the Tribunal’s consideration in this case are:
- (a) Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to consider this case?
- (b) Who bought the vehicle?
- (c) Is TWC a supplier of the vehicle for the purposes of the CGA?
- (d) Has the vehicle been of acceptable quality for the purposes of s 6 of the CGA?
- (e) Are the vehicle’s defects a failure of a substantial character?
- (f) What remedy is Alexander entitled to under the CGA?
Evidence
[6] Evidence was given at the hearing by both Alexander and Roger.
[7] For TWC, I heard evidence from Jamie Haitana, its business manager. Brett Nowell gave evidence for himself and also for TWC.
Relevant background
[8] Alexander first saw the vehicle advertised for sale on Facebook Marketplace. It was advertised at about $5,500 when he first saw it. He contacted the advertiser, Brett Nowell. Alexander did not speak with Mr Nowell over the telephone but the pair had some Messenger exchanges on 22 November 2023.
[9] In these exchanges, Alexander asked Mr Nowell: “hi mate, can I pick up today for $5,000 will you do that?”. Mr Nowell replied and accepted the offer of $5,000. Alexander then asked for the address and was given “35 Greenwood Street Hamilton”. He asked if he could come down now and Mr Nowell said “yes”.
[10] Within about 30 minutes, Alexander left his home for Hamilton, taking a tandem trailer. He took some friends with him. Before arriving, he sent a message to Mr Nowell to ask if it was a dealership or Mr Nowell’s workplace. Mr Nowell replied to say it was his workplace. Alexander asked: “what is the place called?”. Mr Nowell replied, “big sale flags”.
[11] Upon arriving at the address he had been given, Alexander saw that it was the car yard premises of TWC. He parked his vehicle on the street and claims he went into the TWC premises and located Mr Nowell in his office. He also saw that there was an adjoining vehicle dealership, “The Cheap Car Place.” It was common ground that The Cheap Car Place and TWC are related entities, with the same director and registered address.
[12] Having located Mr Nowell, Alexander asked him a couple of questions about the car, including whether it had any problems. Mr Nowell said: “the only problem is the injector”. Alexander then took the vehicle for a short test drive. He had brought a small diagnostic scan with him but could not get it to work.
[13] Upon returning to the TWC premises, Alexander located Mr Nowell again in his office. The pair discussed and agreed on the price of $5,000. Alexander arranged to make payment there and then. He paid $100 cash and $4,900 to the personal bank account number of Mr Nowell.
[14] He gave Mr Nowell Roger’s drivers license so that Mr Nowell could attend to the change of ownership into Roger’s name. Alexander and Roger had agreed that Alexander would pay for the car but the vehicle would be held in Roger’s name. It would still be Alexander’s car. Alexander was only 16 at the date of this transaction and I infer that it was one of the conditions of Roger agreeing to allow his son to own a vehicle at the age of 16 that he would need to be the owner of it.
[15] Alexander said that Mr Nowell mentioned a few times that this was to be a private sale. Alexander did not think too much about that at the time.
The engine fails
[16] The following day, Roger found the radiator to be low on coolant. He topped the coolant levels up and was surprised it took approximately three litres of coolant. Upon starting up the vehicle he found the coolant in the combustion tank to be bubbling badly. He formed the view that this could not be from overheating because the engine was cold and suspected that combustion gases must have entered the coolant system. He telephoned Gisler Motor Technic (Gisler). Gisler said that most likely the problem was a blown head gasket and estimated $2,000 to repair.
[17] Alexander contacted Mr Nowell by telephone and Mr Nowell agreed to pay $1,000 towards the head gasket repair. Mr Nowell said he would need to get the money from the prior owner of the vehicle. That sum was then paid directly from “The Cheap Car Place” to Alexander.
[18] Alexander then arranged for the vehicle to be taken to Gisler for repairs. During the course of repairs, on removal of the cylinder head, Gisler formed the view that the same attempted repair had very recently taken place. This was because the engine faces had had a new sealant present and the head bolts had copper grease on them. Gisler found multiple visible cracks in the head gasket and a crack in the number two piston. It found that there was a broken key on the cam gear valve touch, and that the camshaft was out of timing, causing the valves to hit the pistons.
[19] Gisler advised Roger that the engine had been reassembled with no repairs taking place prior to the sale to Alexander and that in its opinion the engine would now require a complete rebuild at an estimated cost of up to $10,000.
[20] Alexander produced a copy of a statement from Gisler, to corroborate its findings. This recorded the findings referred to above.
[21] At this point, Roger contacted Mr Nowell by telephone to explain the situation and was advised that nothing further could be done because this was a private sale.
[22] Roger produced a Carjam report recording that the owner of the vehicle immediately prior to it being owned by Alexander; it was owned by TWC. That TWC was the registered owner immediately prior to Alexander was not challenged by TWC or Mr Nowell.
The position of Mr Nowell and TWC
[23] Mr Nowell is employed as the finance manager of TWC. He gave evidence that TWC has three car seller businesses, all located side-by-side, on Greenwood Street in Frankton, Hamilton. One of these is The Cheap Car Place Ltd. TWC is another.
[24] TWC initially traded the vehicle for $5,000 on 2 November 2023. The vehicle then went from TWC’s premises to The Cheap Car Place’s premises. Mr Nowell first saw it there on 10 November 2023 and verbally agreed to purchase it from TWC for $5,000 at that time, subject to a warrant of fitness (WOF) being completed.
[25] On 16 November 2023, after the vehicle got its WOF, Mr Nowell took possession of the vehicle. He did not register an online change of ownership for the vehicle, so the vehicle was still in the name of TWC.
[26] The agreement regarding payment was that he would not have to pay for it until he received his commissions on the 5th of the following month, namely on 5 December 2023. The agreement was that the price would be deducted from any commissions that were due.
[27] Mr Nowell said he saw an opportunity to make some extra dollars over Christmas and so listed the vehicle for sale on Facebook marketplace for $9,000. He did not do any repairs on the vehicle before doing so and nor did he service it.
[28] In the meantime, Mr Nowell began driving the vehicle to and from his place of work, and parked it at the premises of TWC during the day.
[29] On 22 November 2023, Mr Nowell noticed that the check engine light was on. He took the vehicle to Jordan Milo, a mechanic used by TWC, and asked him to perform a diagnostic scan. The scan produced a fault code for injectors. With there being faulty injectors, Mr Nowell realised the vehicle was not worth $9,000 so he dropped the price back. Within one hour he had the approach from Alexander referred to above.
[30] Mr Nowell said that when Alexander arrived at his workplace, he was waiting for him out on the street. He did not come into his office at that time.
[31] He said that he showed him the vehicle which was located around the back of the premises and that Alexander was then left with the vehicle for 45 minutes while he checked it over and took it for a test drive. He confirmed that once Alexander had inspected the vehicle he did come into his TWC office to have a discussion about price and complete the transaction.
[32] He said that it was his personal bank account number that he gave Alexander once the price was agreed and that once he received the money in his bank account he then paid his employer, TWC, the $5,000 that he owed for the vehicle. When I asked him why did he not wait for the money to be deducted from his commissions due on 5 December 2023 as per the agreement, he said that he had the money so simply wanted to pay it.
[33] Mr Nowell claims that he later received a telephone call from Alexander about the blown head gasket and agreed to contribute to that. He paid Alexander $1,000 and in order to do that got an advance on his commissions from TWC. On paper, Mr Nowell had lost $1,000 on the vehicle but he gave no evidence or indication that he was upset with his employer about that.
[34] Subsequently, Mr Nowell said he received a telephone call from Roger who he found to be very aggressive and rude. That conversation did not end well.
[35] Mr Haitana produced a document regarding the sale of the vehicle. He said he produced this to corroborate the fact that this was a genuine sale. The document is an invoice recording a sale between The Cheap Car Place Ltd and Mr Nowell. The Cheap Car Place Ltd is described as “vendor”. Mr Haitana signed the invoice under “Vendor Confirmation” and “on behalf of The Cheap Car Place Ltd”. Mr Nowell has signed it as purchaser. Details of the vehicle are recorded.
[36] At the end of the hearing, it was revealed that Alexander is a minor, being only 16 at the time of purchase of the vehicle. He turned 17 in December 2023.
Issue 1: Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to consider this claim?
[37] The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is set out in ss 89 and 90 of the Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003. Under s 89, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear any application or claim relating to the sale of any motor vehicle under the CGA, the Fair Trading Act 1986 and certain provisions of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017. There are limits to that jurisdiction. Relevantly, under s 90(1) of the Motor Vehicle Sales Act, the Tribunal has jurisdiction only where one of the parties to a claim is a motor vehicle trader.
[38] This claim relates to the sale of a motor vehicle. TWC is a party to this claim – it was named as the respondent. It is also a registered motor vehicle trader. Accordingly, regardless of whether or not it was a party to the relevant contract in this case, the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to consider the application.
Issue 2: Who bought the vehicle?
[39] As noted above this application was initially filed by Roger. He claimed that he bought the vehicle “with” Alexander but the application named only himself as the applicant. It was not until further information provided by Roger and Alexander came to light during the hearing that it emerged that in fact it was Alexander who purchased the vehicle.
[40] This position also aligned with that of the Respondent’s. Mr Nowell filed a statement on 3 March 2024 with the Tribunal stating that his position was that the vehicle was sold to Alexander and that Roger had nothing to do with the sale.
[41] I agree that the vehicle was sold to Alexander.
[42] Alexander found the advertisement and conducted all initial communications with Mr Nowell. He visited the TWC premises to conduct his own investigation into the vehicle for a test drive. He made the decision to then purchase the vehicle and paid the purchase price. The vehicle was for his intended use and was merely to be put into the name of his father once the transaction was complete.
[43] I find that the vehicle was bought by Alexander and is Alexander’s vehicle. Alexander was only 16 and although no reason for Roger having the vehicle put in his name was offered during the hearing, there may be many reasons, insurance purposes for one, why a parent would want a vehicle being purchased by their 16 year old child in their own name.
[44] I find that the vehicle was purchased by Alexander. It follows that Roger is struck out of the claim as an applicant.
Issue 3: Is TWC a supplier of the vehicle for the purposes of the CGA?
[45] The guarantees provided to consumers under the CGA only apply to a “supplier”, as that word is defined in the CGA.
[46] Section 2 of the CGA provides that:
supplier—
(a) means a person who, in trade,—
(i) supplies goods to a consumer by—
(A) transferring the ownership or the possession of the goods under a contract of sale, exchange, lease, hire, or hire purchase to which that person is a party; or
(B) transferring the ownership of the goods as the result of a gift from that person; or
(C) transferring the ownership or possession of the goods as directed by an insurer; or
(ii) supplies services to an individual consumer or a group of consumers (whether or not the consumer is a party, or the consumers are parties, to a contract with the person); and
(b) includes,—
(i) where the rights of the supplier have been transferred by assignment or by operation of law, the person for the time being entitled to those rights:
(ii) a creditor within the meaning of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 who has lent money on the security of goods supplied to a consumer, if the whole or part of the price of the goods is to be paid out of the proceeds of the loan and if the loan was arranged by a person who, in trade, supplied the goods:
(iii) a person who, in trade, assigns or procures the assignment of goods to a creditor within the meaning of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 to enable the creditor to supply those goods, or goods of that kind, to the consumer:
(iv) a person (other than an auctioneer) who, in trade, is acting as an agent for another, whether or not that other is supplying in trade.
[47] It follows that TWC is a “supplier” under the CGA if it transferred the ownership or the possession of the car under a contract of sale to which it was a party. There may of course be more than two parties to such a contract, the CGA simply refers to there being a contract of sale to which the alleged supplier is a party.
[48] I must therefore determine whether:
- TWC was a party to the contract of sale with Alexander, and
- TWC transferred the ownership or possession of the vehicle to Alexander.
[50] I am satisfied that there was a contract of sale with Alexander. The question is whether TWC was another party.
[51] It was not in dispute that TWC was the owner of the vehicle after it was initially traded in in early December 2023. TWC then remained the registered owner, according to TWC and Mr Nowell, until the vehicle was sold to Alexander.
The vehicle was owned by TWC at the same of sale to Alexander
[52] I consider that TWC was a party to the contract of sale to Alexander, and indeed remained the actual beneficial owner of the vehicle at the time of sale. Mr Nowell may well have been a party to the contract of sale as well but as noted above, for the purposes of the CGA it is only necessary that TWC be one party to the contract. I make this factual finding because I did not find the explanation that the vehicle was not owned by TWC at the time of sale to Alexander to be at all compelling, and I do not accept it.
[53] I accept that Mr Nowell did describe the sale to Alexander as a private sale. But it is trite that the labels parties use to describe their contractual relationship is not determinative of the substance of their contractual relationship. The question I must decide is what the substance of the contractual relationship was.
[54] There were parts of Mr Nowell’s version of events which did not have an air of commercial reality to them. For example, TWC allowed Mr Nowell to take and start driving the vehicle without a single cent being paid, on the basis that payment would come the following month. It is not a usual condition of sale under a contract to sell a vehicle that a purchaser takes possession of the vehicle, but then has time to pay for it. I accept that there are many occasions where there is a credit contract put in place to finance the purchase, but generally that involves a third party financier. Any motor vehicle trader allowing a purchaser to buy a vehicle without paying for it would presumably ensure that there was adequate loan documentation in place to ensure payment. Here, there was no such record of any loan. The loan / deferred payment was not documented at all.
[55] Further, when it was necessary for a contribution to be made to the suspected blown head gasket, Mr Nowell got the funds to pay that from his employer, TWC. It was therefore TWC’s money that went to Alexander to fund the repairs. This strikes me as more than mere coincidence.
[56] Then, when the vehicle was sold, Mr Nowell did not wait for the commission deduction to make payment of the $5,000, as was the alleged agreement, but paid his employer straightaway. If he were actually to be the beneficiary of the $5,000, it would have been easier, and better for him, to simply allow the original purchase price to be deducted the following month.
[57] There is a lack of any corroborating documentation verifying Mr Nowell and TWC’s version of events. Here, the only document produced relating to the purchase price is the invoice from The Cheap Car Place Ltd for $5,000. There is no mention of any loan or deferred payment of the purchase price. Far from recording that TWC was the vendor (which would have reflected reality, because it was the then owner) it has recorded the related entity as the vendor. Also, as noted above, it does not include the other condition that had been allegedly agreed, namely, that Mr Nowell was entitled to a deferred payment. I do not consider this document at all conclusive or compelling as to who owned the vehicle at the time of sale.
[58] If Mr Nowell’s version of events is correct, he is $1,000 out of pocket on this transaction. Any other purchaser of this vehicle (buying it to make money in the lead up to Christmas, as was suggested by Mr Nowell) would be very unhappy about that and would be looking to seek some compensation from the seller. Yet there is no record produced of that response. Instead Mr Nowell is content to accept his losses. This does not seem the normal response of a genuine buyer.
[59] Lastly, Alexander viewed the vehicle at or near the premises of TWC. During his inspection he went on to the car yard premises itself and went into Mr Nowell’s office there, where the transaction was concluded. The vehicle itself was displayed for sale at or near the TWC offices.
[60] I find that TWC remained the owner of this vehicle until it was sold by Mr Nowell to Alexander. Mr Nowell committed it to that sale as its agent. I find that TWC was a party to the contract of sale. I also find that TWC transferred the ownership or possession of the vehicle to Alexander under that contract of sale. This is because its agent Mr Nowell released possession of the vehicle to Alexander.
Issue 4: Was the vehicle of acceptable quality?
[61] Section 6 of the CGA imposes on suppliers and manufacturers of consumer goods a guarantee that the goods are of acceptable quality. Section 2 of the CGA defines “goods” as including vehicles.
[62] The expression "acceptable quality" is defined in s 7 as follows:
7 Meaning of acceptable quality
(1) For the purposes of section 6, goods are of acceptable quality if they are as—
(a) fit for all the purposes for which goods of the type in question are commonly supplied; and
(b) acceptable in appearance and finish; and
(c) free from minor defects; and
(d) safe; and
(e) durable,—
as a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the state and condition of the goods, including any hidden defects, would regard as acceptable, having regard to—
(f) the nature of the goods:
(g) the price (where relevant):
(h) any statements made about the goods on any packaging or label on the goods:
(ha) the nature of the supplier and the context in which the supplier supplies the goods:
(i) any representation made about the goods by the supplier or the manufacturer:
(j) all other relevant circumstances of the supply of the goods.
(2) Where any defects in goods have been specifically drawn to the consumer's attention before he or she agreed to the supply, then notwithstanding that a reasonable consumer may not have regarded the goods as acceptable with those defects, the goods will not fail to comply with the guarantee as to acceptable quality by reason only of those defects.
(3) Where goods are displayed for sale or hire, the defects that are to be treated as having been specifically drawn to the consumer's attention for the purposes of subsection (2) are those disclosed on a written notice displayed with the goods.
(4) Goods will not fail to comply with the guarantee of acceptable quality if—
(a) the goods have been used in a manner, or to an extent which is inconsistent with the manner or extent of use that a reasonable consumer would expect to obtain from the goods; and
(b) the goods would have complied with the guarantee of acceptable quality if they had not been used in that manner or to that extent.
(5) A reference in subsections (2) and (3) to a defect means any failure of the goods to comply with the guarantee of acceptable quality.
[63] In considering whether or not goods meet the guarantee of acceptable quality, the Tribunal must consider the quality elements as set out in s 7(1)(a)–(e) of the CGA as modified by the factors set out in s 7(1)(f)–(j), from the perspective of a “reasonable consumer”. The test is an objective one; it is not a view of those factors from a purchaser’s subjective perspective.
[64] This was a very old vehicle with high mileage at a very low purchase price. A reasonable consumer would have extremely realistic expectations as to its longevity and the potential need for significant maintenance and repairs to be spent, and in the not too distant future.
[65] That said, I am satisfied that they would not expect to encounter the faults that this vehicle has had so soon into their ownership. I accept the diagnosis offered by Gisler, which Mr Haynes, the Tribunal’s Assessor, agrees with; that there are cracks in the head gasket and a crack in the number two piston with a broken key on the cam gear valve touch. Repairs will require replacement with a new engine.
[66] A reasonable consumer would simply not expect even in a low value, older and high mileage vehicle to encounter such a failure, before they had even driven the vehicle at all.
[67] I find that the faults that this vehicle has had have meant that the vehicle failed the guarantee of acceptable quality.
Issue 5: Are the vehicle’s defects a failure of a substantial character?
[68] Under s 18(3) of the CGA, Alexander may reject the vehicle if its defects amount to a failure of a substantial character. A failure of a substantial character is defined in s 21 of the CGA:
- 21 Failure of substantial character
For the purposes of section 18(3), a failure to comply with a guarantee is of a substantial character in any case where—
(a) the goods would not have been acquired by a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the nature and extent of the failure; or
(b) the goods depart in 1 or more significant respects from the description by which they were supplied or, where they were supplied by reference to a sample or demonstration model, from the sample or demonstration model; or
(c) the goods are substantially unfit for a purpose for which goods of the type in question are commonly supplied or, where section 8(1) applies, the goods are unfit for a particular purpose made known to the supplier or represented by the supplier to be a purpose for which the goods would be fit, and the goods cannot easily and within a reasonable time be remedied to make them fit for such purpose; or
(d) the goods are not of acceptable quality within the meaning of section 7 because they are unsafe.
[69] Section 21(a) of the CGA applies to this case. The question I must answer is whether the faults that this vehicle has, are such that a reasonable consumer, fully acquainted with the true nature and extent of the faults, would not have purchased the vehicle.
[70] I have little difficulty in concluding that the faults that this vehicle has are such that a reasonable consumer, fully acquainted with the true nature and extent of these faults would simply not have purchased the vehicle at all. The Tribunal regularly encounters cases where vehicles are supplied with pre-existing defects. A common feature of those cases is that the purchasers are often prepared to allow the supplier to rectify those defects, particularly where the repairs are straightforward, and the defect is unlikely to return once repairs are affected.
[71] Here, this is not the case at all. The vehicle is completely undrivable and will require substantial and expensive repairs. The vehicle’s faults are failures of a substantial character.
Issue 6: What remedy is Alexander entitled to under the CGA?
[72] The relevant remedies are set out in s 18 of the CGA, which provides:
- Options against suppliers where goods do not comply with guarantees
(1) Where a consumer has a right of redress against the supplier in accordance with this Part in respect of the failure of any goods to comply with a guarantee, the consumer may exercise the following remedies.
(2) Where the failure can be remedied, the consumer may—
(a) require the supplier to remedy the failure within a reasonable time in accordance with section 19:
(b) where a supplier who has been required to remedy a failure refuses or neglects to do so, or does not succeed in doing so within a reasonable time,—
(i) have the failure remedied elsewhere and obtain from the supplier all reasonable costs incurred in having the failure remedied; or
(ii) subject to section 20, reject the goods in accordance with section 22.
(3) Where the failure cannot be remedied or is of a substantial character within the meaning of section 21, the consumer may—
(a) subject to section 20, reject the goods in accordance with section 22; or
(b) obtain from the supplier damages in compensation for any reduction in value of the goods below the price paid or payable by the consumer for the goods.
(4) In addition to the remedies set out in subsection (2) and subsection (3), the consumer may obtain from the supplier damages for any loss or damage to the consumer resulting from the failure (other than loss or damage through reduction in value of the goods) which was reasonably foreseeable as liable to result from the failure.
[73] Under s 18(3) of the CGA, Alexander has the right to reject the vehicle because the vehicle’s faults are a failure of a substantial character.
[74] Alexander is entitled to a refund of all amounts paid in respect of the vehicle.[2]
[75] In this case, Alexander has paid the sum of $5,000. Deducted from that sum should be $1,000, already received by Alexander. TWC must pay the sum of $4,000 to Alexander within 10 working days of the date of this decision.
[76] Pursuant to s 18(4) of the CGA, Alexander is also entitled to reimbursement of the diagnostic charges of Gisler, being the sum of $374. TWC must pay the sum of $374 within 10 working days of the date of this decision.
[77] Once these sums have been paid, TWC must arrange with Alexander, at a time, location and date convenient to him to uplift the vehicle from him.
Contracts entered into with a Minor
[78] For completion purposes only I mention that Alexander may additionally have had a remedy under subpart 6 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017. Pursuant to s 85 of that Act, a minor is defined as a person under the age of 18 years. Section 87 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 enables the Court to enquire into the fairness and reasonableness of a contract with a minor. The Court has powers under s 88 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 to make various orders, including an order cancelling the contract or making an order for compensation.
[79] The Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to make any rulings at all under these provisions of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017. Any such dispute would need to have been determined by the Disputes Tribunal. I merely mention this by way of completion purposes because had Alexander failed in this application then he may well have pursued this remedy in the Disputes Tribunal.
[80] I consider that suppliers who are in trade, such as TWC, need to be careful with minors and young people generally. Although Alexander presented his evidence clearly and honestly, I nevertheless found him to clearly have the appearance and manner of a very young person, likely very inexperienced in transactions as large as this, albeit he was clearly guided by his father.
DATED at AUCKLAND this 4th day of June 2024
D Watson
Adjudicator
[1] Registration number PYC771
[2] Consumer Guarantees Act 1993, s 23(1)(a).
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZMVDT/2024/90.html