Landis v Westpoint Autos - [2023] QCAT 540

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Landis v Westpoint Autos [2023] QCAT 540

PARTIES:

SARAH ELIZABETH LANDIS

(applicant)

v

WESTPOINT AUTOS

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

MVL093-22

MATTER TYPE:

Motor vehicle matter

DELIVERED ON:

8 June 2023

HEARING DATE:

2 December 2022

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Adjudicator Struik

ORDERS:

1.   I order that the respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $26,570.60, made up as follows:

(a)     refund of purchase price, $24,485;

(b)     interest on finance costs, $1573.85;

(c)     finance set-up costs, $175;

(d)     finance maintenance fee, $60; and

(e)     QCAT filing fee, $276.75,

on or before 28 August 2023.

CATCHWORDS:

TRADE AND COMMERCE – COMPETITION, FAIR TRADING AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGISLATION – CONSUMER PROTECTION – GUARANTEES, CONDITIONS AND WARRANTIES IN CONSUMER TRANSACTIONS – GUARANTEES, CONDITIONS AND WARRANTIES – where a different vehicle than the vehicle described in the contract of sale was delivered – where interior trim was different than as described – where VIN and engine number different than as described – where consideration was arranged through a financier – whether motor vehicle corresponded with its description – whether motor vehicle corresponded with the sample or demonstration model – whether consumer rejected the goods – whether failure to comply with consumer guarantee a major failure – whether consumer entitled to damages.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) sch 2 s 56, sch 2 s 57, sch 2 s 259, sch 2 s 260
Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld) s 16, s 15, s 50A
Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 (Qld) s 12

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 9

Haisman v Drive (Australia) Pty Ltd [2020] QCAT 44

Howarth & Anor v Biscamoss Pty Ltd [2022] QCATA 72

Lam v Steve Jarvin Motors Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCATAP 186

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

Self-represented

REASONS FOR DECISION

The following reasons were delivered orally on 8 June 2023 at the Brisbane Registry of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (‘QCAT’).
On the 2^nd of December 2022, I heard the application and reserved my decision. I am now in a position to deliver my decision with reasons in relation to that application, MVL093 of 2022.
On the 16^th of April 2021, Sarah Landis, “Ms Landis”, filed an application for minor civil dispute, consumer dispute, with the tribunal. The respondent is Westpoint Autos, (the ‘dealer’). Ms Landis agreed to purchase a motor vehicle, (the ‘vehicle’), described in the contract order form signed by the parties on the 27^th of January 2021 as being a Haval model H2 2WD Auto Lux, 1.5 litre petrol, 20 YM, with onyx paint, and having a VIN LGWEE4A45LH927492 and engine number 2025009377. Ms Landis says that the vehicle was ordered with black interior trim, and this is not disputed by the dealer, although the trim colour is not noted on the contract/order form. The purchase price of the vehicle was $25,484.
Ms Landis says in her application that the vehicle she agreed to purchase was not the…

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 Landis v Westpoint Autos

Details

AGLC: Landis v Westpoint Autos [2023] QCAT 540
Case: [2023] QCAT 540
Decision Date: 8 June 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in this case were Landis, the applicant, and Westpoint Autos, the respondent. The dispute arose from the sale of a motor vehicle by the respondent to the applicant. The applicant alleged that the vehicle delivered was not the one described in the contract of sale, with discrepancies in the interior trim, Vehicle Identification Number (VIN), and engine number. The case was heard by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The legal issues that the court had to decide included whether the motor vehicle corresponded with its description, whether it corresponded with the sample or demonstration model, whether the consumer rejected the goods, whether the failure to comply with the consumer guarantee was a major failure, and whether the consumer was entitled to damages.

The court considered the evidence presented by both parties and found that the motor vehicle delivered was not the one described in the contract of sale. The interior trim, VIN, and engine number were all different from what was described. The court also found that the consumer had not rejected the goods and that the failure to comply with the consumer guarantee was a major failure. The court concluded that the consumer was entitled to a refund of the purchase price, interest on finance costs, finance set-up costs, finance maintenance fee, and the QCAT filing fee.

The court ordered that the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $26,570.60, made up of the refund of purchase price, interest on finance costs, finance set-up costs, finance maintenance fee, and QCAT filing fee. The payment was to be made on or before 28 August 2023.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. I order that the respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $26,570.60, made up as follows:

(a) refund of purchase price, $24,485;

(b) interest on finance costs, $1573.85;

(d) finance maintenance fee, $60; and

(e) QCAT filing fee, $276.75,

on or before 28 August 2023.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.