Jensen v RZK Property Pty Ltd

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Jensen v RZK Property Pty Ltd [2024] QCAT 213

PARTIES:

TIMOTHY JENSEN

(applicant)

V

RZK PROPERTY PTY LTD

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

MVL117-22

MATTER TYPE:

Motor vehicle matters

DELIVERED ON:

22 May 2024

HEARING DATE:

17 May 2024

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Cranwell

ORDERS:

RZK Property Pty Ltd is required to pay Timothy Jensen the amount of $21,621.33 within 28 days of the date of this order.

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 consumer entitled to damages

Australian Consumer Law, s 54, s 259, s 260

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Schedule 2

Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld), s 50A, s 50C

Medtel Pty Ltd v Courtney (2003) 130 FCR 182

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

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. On 15 June 2022, Timothy Jensen (‘the applicant’) filed an Application – Motor Vehicle Dispute with the Tribunal.  The respondent is RZK Property Pty Ltd (‘the respondent’).

2. The applicant is the owner of a 2013 Ford Ranger (‘the motor vehicle’). 

3. The applicant purchased the motor vehicle from the respondent on 4 December 2021 for $17,260.  At the time of purchase, the motor vehicle had an odometer reading of 203,538 kms.

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

Consumer guarantees

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 are of acceptable quality if they are as:

   (a) fit for all the purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly supplied; and

   (b) acceptable in appearance and finish; and

   (c) free from defects; and

   (d) safe; and

   (e) durable;

   as a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the state and condition of the goods (including any hidden defects of the goods), would regard as acceptable having regard to the matters in subsection (3).

   (3) The matters for the purposes of subsection (2) are:

   (a) the nature of the goods; and

   (b) the price of the goods (if relevant); and

   (c)…