Fries v PPT Investments Pty Limited [2022] NSWCATCD 134

Fries v PPT Investments Pty Limited [2022] NSWCATCD 134

The applicant did not prove on the balance of probabilities that the vehicle was not of acceptable quality or unfit for a disclosed purpose, or that any proven defect amounted to a major failure. The starter motor was replaced under warranty in a relatively timely manner, a loan car was provided, and the later alleged starting and towing issues were not established by expert or other sufficient evidence. The applicant also did not prove that the second respondent failed to provide services with due care and skill, because it investigated the reported issues but could not replicate faults and no fault codes were present. In any event, the applicant did not establish reasonably foreseeable...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Consumer Claim Concerning Motor Vehicle Consumer Guarantees Under the Australian Consumer Law (nsw) / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
The application is dismissed.
Legal Topics
['consumer Guarantees' 'acceptable Quality of Goods' 'fitness for Disclosed Purpose' 'due Care and Skill in Services' 'motor Vehicle Supply and Repairs' 'loss or Damage']
['consumer Law'] ['consumer Guarantees' 'acceptable Quality of Goods' 'fitness for Disclosed Purpose' 'due Care and Skill in Services' 'motor Vehicle Supply and Repairs' 'loss or Damage']

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 Claim Concerning Motor Vehicle Consumer Guarantees Under the Australian Consumer Law (nsw) / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the vehicle supplied by the first respondent was of acceptable quality within s 54 of the Australian Consumer Law (NSW).' 'Whether any failure to comply with a guarantee was a major failure within s 260 of the Australian Consumer Law (NSW).' "Whether the vehicle was fit for the applicant's disclosed purpose within s 55 of the Australian Consumer Law (NSW)." 'Whether the second respondent rendered repair and maintenance services with due care and skill within s 60 of the Australian Consumer Law (NSW).' 'Whether the applicant proved reasonably foreseeable loss or damage caused by any failure to comply with consumer guarantees.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not prove on the balance of probabilities that the vehicle was not of acceptable quality or unfit for a disclosed purpose, or that any proven defect amounted to a major failure. The starter motor was replaced under warranty in a relatively timely manner, a loan car was provided, and the later alleged starting and towing issues were not established by expert or other sufficient evidence. The applicant also did not prove that the second respondent failed to provide services with due care and skill, because it investigated the reported issues but could not replicate faults and no fault codes were present. In any event, the applicant did not establish reasonably foreseeable...

Court Disposition

The application is dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.']