A tourist managed to reimburse a rental rental rent after she fell five minutes after leaving the rental deposit while driving on the wrong side of the road.
She successfully used a clause in the small lyrics of the rental contract after the rental company fired -ae refused to provide a replacement vehicle, for concern for the safety of other road users.
The tourist had just arrived in New Zealand when, in July last year, she took the rented car from a 20 -day rent with $ 1481, with $ 68.09 per day, which included an excess of zero insurance.
She was seen driving on a roundabout on the wrong side of the road and soon hit a row of parked cars.
As the rent company refused to give it a replacement vehicle, she filed a claim for reimbursement at the Court of disputes, for the amount paid for 20 -day rent in advance.
The decision depended on the terms of the contract around the termination. The court found that the tourist was entitled to a reimbursement of $ 1293, with the remaining 19 days in the rental contract.
The tourist, who was not appointed in the decision, claimed that the vehicle had several defects that led her to lose control of the vehicle.
The contracted company contested this and provided an independent evaluation of the vehicle completed by its manufacturer, which found no evidence of mechanical defects.
In addition, the contracted company provided a statement from a witness that followed the tourist and saw her enter and leave the roundabout on the wrong side.
She admitted that she was on the wrong side of the road, but said it was because she had just arrived in New Zealand and had not driven in a country that drives on the left side of the road.
The court found no evidence of a mechanical defect with the car and that the accident was more likely due to the driver’s error.
Instead, the court focused on the terms and conditions of the rental contract that were agreed when the reserve was made and the vehicle rose.
The hiring company said the contract allowed it to refuse to provide a replacement car if it had concerns that the driver could pose a safety risk to other road users.
As the accident happened a few minutes after the rent, the team found it appropriate for safety reasons to refuse to request a replacement vehicle.
The court thought this was reasonable in the circumstances, but it deepened in the small letters within the terms and conditions.
Although the rental company refers to a clause that claimed that reimbursements were not available on vehicles returned early, the court said this did not covered an early return in case of damage.
A separate clause allowed the Hirer to request the early return of a vehicle in case of damage, but the contract was “silent” about whether the fees paid in advance would be reimbursed in a situation like the tourist.
Kaye Edwards referee said that while the rental company was justified by refusing a replacement vehicle, the contract was unclear and the burden was on the contractor to ensure that the terms and conditions were clear.
