The sequence of events flowed from the car rally in November 2023 and ended in the tribunal this year. <\/p>\n
A driver crashed and knocked over two fences owned by the farmer<\/a> after the council had given permission to close public roads used for the course and all affected landowners had been advised, Thompson said. <\/p>\n The organiser also took responsibility for damage incurred on behalf of any driver. <\/p>\n Thompson said after the crash the organiser agreed to repair the farmer\u2019s fences.<\/p>\n However, that didn\u2019t happen.<\/p>\n Despite asking a contractor to do the work, the repairs were not done and the organiser never followed up.<\/p>\n A few months later, the farmer needed to use his paddock and put up a temporary electric fence, Thompson said.<\/p>\n She said it failed, the cattle escaped and damaged wrapping on baleage on the farmer\u2019s property further down the road.<\/p>\n The farmer arranged for the fences to be repaired and the organiser reimbursed him for the cost.<\/p>\n The farmer then claimed $4432 from the rally organiser, the cost to have the hay bales re-wrapped in plastic.<\/p>\n Thompson said the relevant law<\/a> was contract law. <\/p>\n In this case, the rally organiser breached an agreement to repair the fence. <\/p>\n The company behind the event might have believed the contractor had completed the repairs; it should have followed up, especially because it had not been invoiced for the work, Thompson said.<\/p>\n However, she was unable to find that the farmer was entitled to compensation for damage to the wrapping on the baleage because she was unable to find that he took reasonable steps to minimise the loss.<\/p>\n \u201cIn making this finding I have considered that it is unknown why the hotwire failed.<\/p>\n \u201cHowever, as it was [the farmer] who implemented this temporary solution it is appropriate that it bears the responsibility for it failing,\u201d Thompson said.<\/p>\n