1. John Frederick Haisman is required to return the motor vehicle the subject of these proceedings to Drive (Aust) Pty Ltd within 7 days of the date of these orders.
2. Drive (Aust) Pty Ltd is required to pay to John Frederick Haisman the amount of $45,145 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 54, s 259, s 260, s 262, s 263
On 5 September 2019, Mr Haisman (‘the applicant’) filed an Application – Motor Vehicle Dispute with the Tribunal. The named respondent is Drive (Aust) Pty Ltd (‘the respondent’).
The applicant is the owner of a 2014 Ford Ranger (‘the motor vehicle’).
The applicant purchased the motor vehicle from the respondent on 17 June 2019 for $45,145. The vehicle came with a one year warranty from the respondent.
The applicant seeks relief under the Australian Consumer Law, which is Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act2010 (Cth). The relief sought by the applicant is a refund.
Section 50A of the Fair Trading Act1989 (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
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’.
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.
Sections 54(2) and (3) of the Australian Consumer Law…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Haisman v Drive (Aust) Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Haisman v Drive (Aust) Pty Ltd [2020] QCAT 44
Case
[2020] QCAT 44
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Haisman v Drive (Aust) Pty Ltd involved a dispute between John Frederick Haisman and Drive (Aust) Pty Ltd, a motor vehicle dealer. Haisman had purchased a motor vehicle from Drive, but subsequently claimed that the vehicle was not of acceptable quality, did not meet consumer guarantees, and thus he was entitled to reject the vehicle and seek a refund. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.
The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the motor vehicle met the standard of acceptable quality as guaranteed by consumer protection legislation, whether the failure to meet this standard constituted a major failure, and whether Haisman had validly exercised his right to reject the vehicle within the permitted period. Additionally, the Court had to determine if Haisman was entitled to a refund if he had lawfully rejected the vehicle.
The Court found that the motor vehicle did not meet the acceptable quality standard as it had significant defects that were not disclosed to Haisman at the time of sale. These defects were deemed major failures under the consumer protection legislation, and Haisman had validly exercised his right to reject the vehicle within the stipulated period. Therefore, Haisman was entitled to a refund for the purchase price of the vehicle. Consequently, the Court ordered that Haisman return the vehicle to Drive within seven days, and that Drive pay Haisman $45,145 within 28 days.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. John Frederick Haisman is required to return the motor vehicle the subject of these proceedings to Drive (Aust) Pty Ltd within 7 days of the date of these orders.
2. Drive (Aust) Pty Ltd is required to pay to John Frederick Haisman the amount of $45,145 within 28 days of the date of these orders.