0

I would have thought that the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 in New Zealand would only apply to businesses - but reading the document I could not see anything that would exclude government entities from being bound by the act.

The act talks about a supplier, and defines a supplier to mean "

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

So, if I purchase goods (eg a Passport or Birth Certificate from Internal Affairs or Water from the local council) am I covered by the Consumer Guarantees Act if they loose the document / don't supply water that is up to standard?

I feel sure the government must have carved a loophole out for themselves, and I've never heard of anyone using the CGA against the government, so I must be missing something. Maybe people can use the CGA but courts lack jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter?

Also relevant -

Section 3 of the act says "This Act binds the Crown".

Improve this question
2
  • I would look first for the definition of "person" under the Act, which sometimes excludes government agencies. Commented Mar 26, 2025 at 18:53
  • 1
    The act defines a person as "person includes a local authority, every public body, and any association of persons whether incorporated or not" - so it would seem to specifically include government agencies. Commented Apr 1, 2025 at 21:09

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

No

There can be circumstances where the government is “in trade”, but usually as the customer rather than the supplier.

Notwithstanding, when the government provides you with government services, like a passport or a birth certificate, this is not “in trade” because the government is acting as a government, not a business. Even if they charge a fee for this, there is no contractual relationship.

Now, the supply of water might be different.

Improve this answer
1
  • That does not make sense to me because the act defines in trade as 'or confer trade means any trade, business, industry, profession, occupation, activity of commerce, or undertaking relating to the supply or acquisition of goods or services." and the definition of business would not seem to exclude government as its defined as "business means any undertaking whether carried on for gain or reward or not..." (bolding mine).- Again, I agree intuitively with your view, but these definitions don't seem to exclude the government. Commented Mar 26, 2025 at 17:30

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.