Sabbarton v Bentram Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCATCD 121
The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to comply with its obligations under s54 ACL because the applicant relied on advice from the respondent regarding a critical feature (failsafe return-to-home), and the respondent's employee failed to warn the applicant not to fly the drone until the necessary software was properly configured, thus rendering the product not of acceptable quality.
- Parties
- Applicant: John Sabbarton; Respondent: Bentram Pty Ltd trading as Camzilla
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 11 July 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Consumer Claim / Final Decision
- Outcome
- Judgment for the applicant
- Legal Topics
- Acceptable Quality of Goods, Consumer Guarantees, Remedies for Defective Goods
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
John Sabbarton
Applicant
Bentram Pty Ltd trading as Camzilla
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Consumer Claim / Final Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the supplied goods were of acceptable quality under s 54 ACL
- 2 Whether the respondent failed to comply with statutory guarantees to the consumer under the Australian Consumer Law
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to comply with its obligations under s54 ACL because the applicant relied on advice from the respondent regarding a critical feature (failsafe return-to-home), and the respondent's employee failed to warn the applicant not to fly the drone until the necessary software was properly configured, thus rendering the product not of acceptable quality.
Court Disposition
Judgment for the applicant
Orders
- The respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $1,678.00 immediately
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment