Crawford v Sunco Motors Pty Ltd

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Crawford v Sunco Motors Pty Ltd [2021] QCAT 183

PARTIES:

WILLIAM CRAWFORD

(applicant)

v

SUNCO MOTORS PTY LTD

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

MVL162-20

MATTER TYPE:

Motor vehicle matters

DELIVERED ON:

HEARING DATE:

14 May 2021

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Cranwell

ORDERS:

1.   William Crawford is required to return the motor vehicle the subject of these proceedings to Sunco Motors Pty Ltd within 7 days of the date of these orders.

2.   Sunco Motors Pty Ltd is required to pay to William Crawford the amount of $45,773.78 within 28 days of the date of these orders.

CATCHWORDS:

TRADE AND COMMERCE – COMPETITION, FAIR TRADING AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGISLATION – CONSUMER PROTECTION – GUARANTEES, CONDITIONS AND WARRANTIES IN CONSUMER TRANSACTIONS – GUARANTEES, CONDITIONS AND WARRANTIES – whether motor vehicle of acceptable quality – whether failure to comply with consumer guarantee a major failure – whether goods rejected during the rejection period – whether consumer entitled to refund

Australian Consumer Law, s 2, s 54, s 259, s 260, s 262,
s 263

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Schedule 2

Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld), s 50A

Campbell v Caravan & RV Central Pty Ltd t/as Avan New South Wales & FCA Australia Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCATCD 90

Cary Boyd v Agrison Pty Ltd [2014] VMC 23
Haisman v Drive (Aust) Pty Ltd  [2020] QCAT 44
Medtel Pty Ltd v Courtney (2003) 130 FCR 182

Morphy v Beaufort Townsville Pty Ltd [2018] VCAT 1520

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	Self-represented
Respondent:	Self-represented

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. On 16 July 2020, Mr Crawford (‘the applicant’) filed an Application – Motor Vehicle Dispute with the Tribunal.  The respondent is Sunco Motors Pty Ltd (‘the respondent’).

2. The applicant is the owner of a 2017 Nissan Navara (‘the motor vehicle’). 

3. The applicant purchased the motor vehicle from the respondent on 17 August 2018 for $45,773.78.   The contract included supply of a TJM canopy, carpet mats, towbar, smoked bonnet protector and roof racks.

4. The applicant seeks relief under the Australian Consumer Law, which is Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). The relief sought by the applicant is a refund.

5. Section 50A of the Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld) vests the Tribunal with jurisdiction in relation to motor vehicles in respect of certain actions under the Australian Consumer Law.

Guarantee of acceptable quality

1. Section 54(1) of the Australian Consumer Law provides that, where a person supplies goods in trade or commerce, the goods are guaranteed to be of ‘acceptable quality’.

2. The time at which goods are to be of acceptable quality is the time at which the goods are supplied to the consumer: Medtel Pty Ltd v Courtney (2003) 130 FCR 182 at [64] and [70]. However, information available after the time of supply may be taken into account in deciding whether the goods were of acceptable quality at the time of supply.

3. Sections 54(2) and (3) of the Australian Consumer Law define acceptable quality as follows:

   (2) Goods…