Morris v Tiffany & Co (Australia) Pty Ltd
[2025] QCAT 255
•18 June 2025
QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
MORRIS V TIFFANY & CO (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD [2025] QCAT 255
PARTIES:
JOHN RICHARD MORRIS (applicant)
v
TIFFANY & CO (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:
Q9990-24
MATTER TYPE:
Other minor civil dispute matters
HEARD ON:
18 June 2025
DELIVERED ON:
18 June 2025
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
Senior Member Lember
ORDERS:
1. The application for minor civil dispute – consumer trader dispute is dismissed.
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 gold bracelet exchanged for silver – where store credit given for difference in price rather than refund - whether consumer entitled to change of mind refund
Medtel Pty Ltd v Courtney (2003) 130 FCR 182
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Schedule 2
Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld) s 50
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 11, Schedule 3APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:
Self-represented.
Respondent:
No appearance.
REASONS FOR DECISION
What is the application about?
This decision considers a consumer claim for a ‘change of mind’ refund.
Background facts
It is not disputed that, on 14 September 2024:
(a)At 2.25pm, Mr Morris purchased a ‘Heart Tag Bead Bracelet’ in yellow gold from Tiffany & Co.’s Brisbane store at a price of $4,300.00 as a gift for his partner.
(b)At 4.25pm, Mr Morris returned the bracelet to Tiffany & Co.’s Gold Coast store and purchased a sterling silver bracelet valued at $460.00 in its place.
(c)Mr Morris was refused a refund of the balance purchase price and received a store credit of $3,840.00 in lieu.
Mr Morris explains that in the intervening period, his partner had informed him that the gold bracelet was not their “bracelet of choice”.
By an application in a minor civil dispute - consumer trader dispute filed 15 October 2024[1] Mr Morris seeks an order against Tiffany & Co to compel them to pay him the unspent store credit balance.
[1]Amended, with leave, on 21 March 2025.
The tribunal has jurisdiction to hear minor civil disputes,[2] including claims arising out of a contract between a consumer and a trader.[3] It is not contentious that Mr Morris is a consumer, and the respondent is trader for the purpose of the minor civil dispute – consumer trader jurisdiction nor that the claim arises from a sale transaction that took place between them.
[2]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act), s 11.
[3]Ibid, Schedule 3 (definition of ‘minor civil dispute').
Submissions
Mr Morris argued that:
(a)He is entitled to a change of mind refund because nothing in the terms of sale prohibited it, and, in any event, Tiffany & Co’s refund policy was not adequately brought to his attention at the point of sale.
(b)The Australian Consumer Law, contained in Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (ACL) prohibits traders from refusing refunds. He tendered the following extract from the website of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) in evidence:
Tiffany & Co did not respond to the application[4] and did not appear at the hearing. The tribunal has accepted Mr Morris’ evidence as to service and proceeded in the absence of the respondent,[5] but accepts there is a possibility that the proceeding was not, internal to the respondent company, brought to the attention of a person duly authorised to respond to it.
[4]An application for minor civil dispute – consumer/trader dispute does not require a response to be filed.
[5]QCAT Act, s 93.
Do consumers have a statutory right to a change of mind refund?
Section 50 of the Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld) sets out those claims under the ACL which must be heard in the tribunal provided the proceeding is one for a minor civil dispute. It includes actions for damages against the suppliers of goods (s 259) for breaching ACL consumer guarantees.
For example, section 54(1) of the ACL 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.[6]
[6]Medtel Pty Ltd v Courtney (2003) 130 FCR 182, [64] and [70].
Under s 54(2), goods are of acceptable quality if they are:
(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:
(f)the nature of the goods; and
(g)the price of the goods (if relevant); and
(h)any statements made about the goods on any packaging or label on the goods; and
(i)any representation made about the goods by the supplier or manufacturer of the goods; and
(j)any other relevant circumstances relating to the supply of the goods.
The remedy available to a consumer against a supplier depends in the first instance on whether the failure is a ‘minor failure’ or a ‘major failure’. The term ‘major failure’ is defined in s 260 of the Australian Consumer Law to relevantly mean:
(a) the goods would not have been acquired by a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the nature and extent of the failure; or
(b) the goods depart in one or more significant respects:
(i) if they were supplied by description—from that description; or
(ii) if they were supplied by reference to a sample or demonstration model— from that sample or demonstration model; or
(c) the goods are substantially unfit for a purpose for which goods of the same kind are commonly supplied and they cannot, easily and within a reasonable time, be remedied to make them fit for such a purpose; or
(d) the goods are unfit for a disclosed purpose that was made known to:
(i) the supplier of the goods; or
(ii) a person by whom any prior negotiations or arrangements in relation to the acquisition of the goods were conducted or made;
and they cannot, easily and within a reasonable time, be remedied to make them fit for such a purpose; or
(e) the goods are not of acceptable quality because they are unsafe.
Where there has been a major failure, the consumer is entitled to a refund if they reject the goods[7] within the ‘rejection period’, defined as follows:[8]
(2) The rejection period for goods is the period from the time of the supply of the goods to the consumer within which it would be reasonable to expect the relevant failure to comply with a guarantee referred to in section 259(1)(b) to become apparent having regard to:
(a) the type of goods; and
(b) the use to which a consumer is likely to put them; and
(c) the length of time for which it is reasonable for them to be used; and
(d) the amount of use to which it is reasonable for them to be put before such a failure becomes apparent.
[7]ACL, s 259(3)(a).
[8]ACL, s 262(2).
Importantly, there are no consumer guarantees that apply to the return of goods due to a change of mind. Mr Morris does not allege that bracelet was not of acceptable quality at the time of sale nor that another ACL consumer guarantee was breached in relation to the sale of the bracelet to him. Rather, the bracelet as chosen by him did not suit his partner, who preferred that it be exchanged for something different.
In the absence of any failure, or defect in the bracelet supplied, to the extent Mr Morris relies on the ACL consumer guarantees to ground his claim, the application must fail.
Does Tiffany & Co. have a change of mind refund policy and, if so, is it enforceable?
Although the ACCC website is not, itself authority upon which the tribunal may rely in making its decision, it is notable that immediately below the extract tendered and relied upon by Mr Morris, the following further information appears:[9]
[9]Tribunal Exhibit 3.
The tribunal accepts that, as a matter of contract, if the terms of sale, at the time of sale, included a term that entitled Mr Morris to a refund upon a change of mind, such a promise would be enforceable by Mr Morris in the minor civil dispute – consumer trader jurisdiction as a claim arising out of the sale contract.
Mr Morris also extracted part of Tiffany & Co’s returns policy as set out on their website per the below:
Notably, the extract is from the Tiffany & Co ‘dot com’ website, and not its ‘dot com au’ site that deals with purchases within Australia. The extract is also, like the ACCC web extract, unhelpfully cropped.
According to its Australian website,[10] Tiffany & Co offer a change of mind refund for online purchases if goods are returned within thirty days of purchase, in original condition and packaging and with the tag attached, excluding items that have been personalised, altered or unsealed after delivery. The format of the ‘online returns’ page is similar to the extract of the American site tendered by Mr Morris.
[10]https.// (Tribunal Exhibit 1).
Importantly, a different policy applies for in-store purchases,[11] whereby refunds are not offered for a change of mind, however, store credit (valid for twelve months) or a gift card (valid for three years) may be given if goods are returned in saleable condition within thirty days, accompanied by a sales receipt or gift receipt, and in a new and unworn condition and in the original packaging, again excluding items that have been personalised.
[11] (Tribunal Exhibit 2).
According to the in-store purchase refund policy, whether to accept a product purchased in-store for exchange, and upon accepting it, whether to offer store credit or a gift card are decisions entirely at the discretion of Tiffany & Co.
In the absence of a policy that formed part of the conditions of sale entitling Mr Morris to a change of mind refund on his in-store purchase within Australia, Mr Morris’ application for relief based on a contractual argument must also fail.
Decision
For those reasons, the application for minor civil dispute – consumer trader dispute is dismissed.
0
2
0