Sabbarton v Bentram Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCATCD 121

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.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Sabbarton

Applicant

Bentram Pty Ltd trading as Camzilla

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Consumer Claim / Final Decision

  1. 1 Whether the supplied goods were of acceptable quality under s 54 ACL
  2. 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