De Coster v Wynstan Designs [2022] NSWCATCD 94

De Coster v Wynstan Designs [2022] NSWCATCD 94

The Tribunal found that the repaired awning had significant rippling and puffing, not merely slight wrinkling contemplated by the industry guideline, and was not in the same condition or finish as the product purchased. A reasonable consumer would not have purchased the awning if aware of the defective appearance and finish. The defects were more than teething problems and, given the time, cost and difficulty of rectification, amounted to a major failure, entitling the applicants to a refund of the price of the folding arm awning on return of the awning.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Consumer Claim / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed; respondent ordered to pay the applicants $4,200 and the awning to be returned to the respondent.
Legal Topics
['defective Goods' 'acceptable Quality' 'major Failure' 'consumer Guarantees' 'refund Remedy']
['consumer Law' 'fair Trading'] ['defective Goods' 'acceptable Quality' 'major Failure' 'consumer Guarantees' 'refund Remedy']

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 / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the repaired folding arm awning was of acceptable quality under s 54 of the Australian Consumer Law (NSW).' 'Whether the defects in the awning constituted a major failure entitling the applicants to reject the goods and receive a refund.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the repaired awning had significant rippling and puffing, not merely slight wrinkling contemplated by the industry guideline, and was not in the same condition or finish as the product purchased. A reasonable consumer would not have purchased the awning if aware of the defective appearance and finish. The defects were more than teething problems and, given the time, cost and difficulty of rectification, amounted to a major failure, entitling the applicants to a refund of the price of the folding arm awning on return of the awning.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; respondent ordered to pay the applicants $4,200 and the awning to be returned to the respondent.

Orders

  • ['The respondent, Wynstan Designs Pty Ltd is to pay David De Coster & Sally Armati the sum of $4,200 by 15 June, 2022.' 'The power shade awning is returned to the respondent']