Avci v Inchurch Automotive Pty Ltd t/a Parramatta Motor Group [2019] NSWCATCD 39

Avci v Inchurch Automotive Pty Ltd t/a Parramatta Motor Group [2019] NSWCATCD 39

The respondents failed to comply with the guarantee as to acceptable quality by supplying a new motor vehicle with defective paintwork and a defective engine, constituting a major failure under the ACL s 54 and s 260. The applicant lawfully rejected the vehicle within the statutory rejection period. The respondents could not insist on repair after valid rejection. The applicant was entitled to a refund (less pro rata benefits) and compensation for reasonably foreseeable consequential losses.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Consumer and Commercial/consumer Claim / Trial Judgment/principal Judgment
Outcome
Orders made in favour of applicant for return of motor vehicle, refund, and compensation for consequential loss; indemnity order in favour of first respondent against second respondent for purchase price and insurance compensation; costs application mechanism set.
Legal Topics
['motor Vehicles' 'australian Consumer Law' 'guarantee as to Acceptable Quality' 'major Failure' 'remedies for Consumer Guarantees' 'rejection of Goods' 'compensation for Consequential Loss']
['consumer Law'] ['motor Vehicles' 'australian Consumer Law' 'guarantee as to Acceptable Quality' 'major Failure' 'remedies for Consumer Guarantees' 'rejection of Goods' 'compensation for Consequential Loss']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Consumer and Commercial/consumer Claim / Trial Judgment/principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Did the respondents fail to comply with the guarantee as to acceptable quality?' 'Was the failure a major failure?' 'Did the applicant reject the motor vehicle within the rejection period?' 'What remedy is the applicant entitled to?' 'Were respondents entitled to repair the vehicle notwithstanding rejection?' 'Is the applicant entitled to consequential loss compensation?']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents failed to comply with the guarantee as to acceptable quality by supplying a new motor vehicle with defective paintwork and a defective engine, constituting a major failure under the ACL s 54 and s 260. The applicant lawfully rejected the vehicle within the statutory rejection period. The respondents could not insist on repair after valid rejection. The applicant was entitled to a refund (less pro rata benefits) and compensation for reasonably foreseeable consequential losses.

Court Disposition

Orders made in favour of applicant for return of motor vehicle, refund, and compensation for consequential loss; indemnity order in favour of first respondent against second respondent for purchase price and insurance compensation; costs application mechanism set.

Orders

  • ['First respondent must accept return of Jeep Compass Limited Edition MY 2018 Registration No. DVY60L from applicant.' "First respondent must pay St George Bank (BSB: 333-291) $46,234.54 on 3 June 2019 for applicant's loan discharge." 'First respondent must pay applicant $10,115.05 on or before 3 June 2019.' 'Second...