Barlow v General Japanese Spares Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCATAP 247

Barlow v General Japanese Spares Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCATAP 247

The appeal was upheld because the first instance Tribunal failed to provide adequate reasons on the critical issue of whether the warranty was limited to parts only. It did not acknowledge or deal with the respondent's 1 June 2017 email confirming six months warranty on the reconditioned engine and three months on...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal From a Consumer and Commercial Division Decision Concerning Sale of an Engine, Express Warranty, and Consumer Guarantee Claims / Appeal Panel Decision
Outcome
Appeal upheld; orders 2 and 3 made on 14 June 2018 set aside; substituted warranty repair orders made; application remitted for hearing on compensation for expenses incurred by reason of breach of warranty.
Legal Topics
['inadequate Reasons' 'fresh Evidence' 'express Warranty Terms' "buyer's Remedies for Breach of Warranty" 'consumer Guarantees' 'motor Vehicle Engine Defects']
['civil and Administrative Tribunal Appeals' 'consumer Law' 'sale of Goods' 'contract Law'] ['inadequate Reasons' 'fresh Evidence' 'express Warranty Terms' "buyer's Remedies for Breach of Warranty" 'consumer Guarantees' 'motor Vehicle Engine Defects']

Source-derived case record

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

Internal Appeal From a Consumer and Commercial Division Decision Concerning Sale of an Engine, Express Warranty, and Consumer Guarantee Claims / Appeal Panel Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal gave adequate reasons for finding that the express warranty was limited to parts only' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted on grounds other than a question of law' "Whether the Tribunal's reasoning on the warranty was against the weight of evidence" 'Whether fresh reports dated after the first instance hearing should be admitted on appeal' "Whether the first instance decision erred in rejecting the appellants' Australian Consumer Law consumer guarantee claim" 'What substituted orders should be made for breach of the express warranty']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was upheld because the first instance Tribunal failed to provide adequate reasons on the critical issue of whether the warranty was limited to parts only. It did not acknowledge or deal with the respondent's 1 June 2017 email confirming six months warranty on the reconditioned engine and three months on the turbo and diesel pump, and it relied on oral evidence and a later invoice without explaining how the parts-only limitation became part of the agreement. The email exchange recorded the warranty terms, the later invoice was not an accurate record of the agreement, and the respondent was required to collect the engine, repair it at its own expense so as to make it reasonably...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; orders 2 and 3 made on 14 June 2018 set aside; substituted warranty repair orders made; application remitted for hearing on compensation for expenses incurred by reason of breach of warranty.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is upheld.' 'Orders 2 and 3 made on 14 June 2018 are set aside and in their place the following orders are made.' 'The respondent is to perform such work as is necessary to rectify defects in the engine so as to make the engine reasonably fit for purpose in accordance with the warranty and such work is...