Troppo Trader v Statuspro Pty Ltd

[2012] QCAT 20

CITATION: Troppo Trader v Statuspro Pty Ltd [2012] QCAT 20

PARTIES:	Troppo Trader (Applicant/Appellant)
v
Statuspro Pty Ltd (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: MCDO1884-11

MATTER TYPE: Other minor civil disputes matters

HEARING DATE: 20 December 2011

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Kevin O’Hanlon, Adjudicator

DELIVERED ON: 31 January 2012

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1.   The application by Troppo Traders is dismissed.

2.   That Troppo Traders pay to Statuspro Pty Ltd the sum of $3,985.85.

CATCHWORDS: Fit for the purpose

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT: Troppo Trader was represented by Mrs Liz Kearsley & Mrs Kate Coyte

RESPONDENT: Statuspro Pty Ltd formerly traded under the name of Shanks Business Machines Pty Ltd was represented by Mrs Allison Coleman and Mr Simon Coleman

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

1. This Tribunal is asked to decide between claim and counterclaim, the details of both claims are set out in the papers filed and as summarised hereafter.

2. In this matter Troppo Trader purchased a Koycera 300 ci printer together with a folding machine from the respondents, Statuspro Pty Ltd.  After a lengthy period of correspondence by way of email and several  brochures furnished by Statuspro Pty Ltd to Troppo Trader the Koycera 300 ci machine was ultimately purchased by and delivered to Troppo Trader by Mr Simon Coleman himself and thereafter a technician also attended at the property where it was located.  Delivery occurred in approximately early September 2010.

1. In evidence it was stated that the machine was not used for approximately one month by Troppo Trader until they became familiar with its operations.  Thereafter it was operated and the applicant now claims that the machine could not handle the amount of paperwork and printing that was required.  In effect it was too slow and did not operate properly; in other words they claim is that it was not fit for the purpose and could not provide the number of copies required. 

1. The respondent Statuspro Pty Ltd on the other hand advised that they furnished the applicant Troppo Trader with all the relevant brochures and materials and information about the machine prior to its purchase by Troppo Trader.

1. Troppo Trader purchased the machine by way of a lease back arrangement with a finance company known as Better Rent (Aust) Pty Ltd. 

1. Ultimately Troppo Trader claims that as a result of the machine not being able to be operated properly as required it was returned to the supplier, Statuspro Pty Ltd, and further, negotiations for a settlement were in train after that event which ultimately failed towards the end of December 2010.

1. Troppo Trader now claim in their application before this Tribunal the amount of $25,000 having abandoned its excess of its claim against the respondent Statuspro Pty Ltd in order to bring it within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

1. It is clearly set out in the particulars of the applicants’ original application how they have calculated the amount of their claim.  They say that they are not responsible for the incurred running costs used for the final production and distribution including toner etc in the amount of $6,268.40.  The applicants further claim they had to use an alternative commercial copier business, namely Snap Printers, where their costs were in effect doubled for the production of each booklet which they quantified at $2,061.50.  In addition they have also claimed for the number of production cycles since September 2010 using Snap Printers and they have quantified that amount to equal $15,136.00.  Also the applicant claims the sum of $2,414.58 by way of rental payments pursuant to its rental agreement with Better Rent.  Finally the applicant claims unliquidated damages of $22,704.00.  As I have said before they have reduced the total amount of the claim to $25,000 to bring it within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.

1. In addition to their filed material I have had regard to the oral evidence from Ms Kearsley and Ms Coyte on behalf of the applicant Troppo Trader. 

1. I have also heard oral evidence from Mr and Mrs Coleman and have had regard to voluminous material furnished by them in their counter application.  Their counter application claims the amount of $3,985.85 being for several tax invoices rendered over the period from 7 September 2010 to 18 November 2010 for services and toner rendered and supplied to Troppo Traders.  Mr and Mrs Coleman also seek an order that Troppo Traders’ application be dismissed.

1. During the course of this hearing I have heard competing allegations as to the negotiations that took part prior to the purchase by Troppo Traders of Koycera 300 ci and I have had regard both to the oral evidence of all the parties and the attachments and emails provided by the parties.  I note that Ms Kearsley and Ms Coyte did not dispute the attachments from the Colemans and acknowledged receiving them prior to my hearing oral evidence.  I have also heard during the course of evidence that Troppo Traders claim that the machine continually failed to operate because of temperature and humidity problems; that it was too slow in processing the paper and could not meet their requirements for producing booklets; that they were not told that the paper had to be put in landscape fashion and that the paper folder producing the booklets prevented the printer from producing the booklets quickly enough.  They say that they relied on Mr and Mrs Coleman’s expertise in this area in providing them with a machine that would carry out their requirements. 

1. I note that during negotiations prior to purchase of the machine (and it was not disputed) that a telebooklet presented by Troppo Traders to the Respondents as the required format to be produced.  The front page was to be in colour and the internal pages were to be printed in black.  However, and it was not disputed, the final booklet produced by Troppo Traders was produced in full colour format throughout having a quite a few photographs and printed in greyscale.  Mr Coleman says that he was not aware that Troppo Traders was going to do this.  He says, and I accept, he was told that it was only to be colour on the outside and black and white on the inside as I have already stated and furthermore, as the applicants had used greyscale printing, this increased incredibly the amount of toner that was to be used rather than ordinary black ink and this also lead to increased costs for the Troppo Traders.

1. During the course of negotiations Mr Coleman asserts, and the brochures seem to bear him out, that the machine could produce 130,000 pages per month at the rate of approximately 30 pages per minute, it is on that basis that the machine was supplied to Troppo Traders who had the benefit of the brochures indicating the various machines that were available from Statuspro Pty Ltd. 

1. I have also been directed to a settlement agreement which Ms Kearsley and Ms Coyte say was a verbal agreement and I note that there is nothing in writing in relation to that settlement agreement.  In any event the terms of that settlement agreement have not been carried out by either party (which, in passing I might add, if it had been carried out would have presented a most suitable solution to this whole matter).  I am left with a decision to make on the evidence before me as to whether the machine as supplied was suitable for the purposes as requested by Troppo Traders.

1. When the machine was delivered to Troppo Traders at the same time it was not disputed that a maintenance agreement was also furnished for the applicants to consider and sign which would account for maintenance, service attendances on the machine.  This maintenance agreement was not taken up for the month that the machine was there and so therefore Statuspro Pty Ltd say that they were entitled to render their tax invoices for service call outs to the machine.  I accept that the Colemans and or their technicians have endeavoured to rectify the problems that Troppo Trader experienced during its initial operations.  I find it difficult accept that more time was not put into trying to operate the machine particularly in trying to circumvent the problem of heat and humidity which the machine was not designed to operate in, and which condition only seems to have presented itself after the purchase.  I do not accept Ms Kearsley and Ms Coyte’s contention that Statuspro were made aware of the circumstance it was to operate in before the machine was furnished to the Troppo Traders.

1. On the balance of probabilities I accept the evidence of Mr and Mrs Coleman that during the course of the negotiations the machine supplied by them would meet the requirement as then stated and required by Troppo Traders.  On that basis therefore I dismiss the claim by Troppo Traders.

1. I order that the claim by Troppo Traders be dismissed and that Troppo Traders pay to Statuspro Pty Ltd the amount of $3,985.85.