Hanif v Car Mart Direct Pty Ltd [2023] NSWCATCD 187

Hanif v Car Mart Direct Pty Ltd [2023] NSWCATCD 187

The evidence established that the vehicle was not of acceptable quality at the time of supply due to immediate and persistent defects rendering it unroadworthy and unsafe; this constituted a major failure under section 260 of the ACL. The applicant timely rejected the goods and was therefore entitled to a refund. The respondent's conduct was found to be misleading under section 18 of the ACL as the applicant was misled into purchasing a vehicle different to that which was advertised. Damages for loss arising from the respondent's contravening conduct were assessed accordingly.

Parties
Applicant: Sabah Hanif; Respondent: Car Mart Direct Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Consumer Claim / Final Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Application allowed in substantive part
Legal Topics
Consumer Guarantees, Major Failure, Rejection of Goods, Misleading and Deceptive Conduct, Defective Goods, Costs
Consumer Law Consumer Guarantees Major Failure Rejection of Goods Misleading and Deceptive Conduct Defective Goods Costs

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 3 Authorities cited 29 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sabah Hanif

Applicant

Car Mart Direct Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Consumer Claim / Final Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent failed to comply with the guarantee as to acceptable quality in the supply of the vehicle
  2. 2 Whether such failure was a major failure under the Australian Consumer Law
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was entitled to reject the vehicle

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence established that the vehicle was not of acceptable quality at the time of supply due to immediate and persistent defects rendering it unroadworthy and unsafe; this constituted a major failure under section 260 of the ACL. The applicant timely rejected the goods and was therefore entitled to a refund. The respondent's conduct was found to be misleading under section 18 of the ACL as the applicant was misled into purchasing a vehicle different to that which was advertised. Damages for loss arising from the respondent's contravening conduct were assessed accordingly.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in substantive part

Orders

  • Car Mart Direct Pty Ltd must immediately accept Sabah Hanif's return to it of the 2012 Mazda CX5 NSW Registration number DD70UW.
  • Car Mart Direct Pty Ltd are to be responsible for any towing costs in relation to the return of the vehicle to them.