Repeated, and the operator says otherwise The strongest thing on this page. For each of these, a primary source addresses the idea directly and contradicts it, usually in one sentence, often on the very page the advice is explaining.
Target does not accept a photocopied receipt as proof of purchase when a customer returns a faulty product.
The consumer can provide original documents, photos or photocopies.Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) 2026-06-28 Proof of purchase
Once the manufacturer's warranty (or a retailer's voluntary warranty) has expired, the retailer has no further obligation and the consumer has no right to a free repair, replacement or refund - the cost of any remedy falls on the customer.
However, any warranty, whether express or manufacturer, will only ever complement the consumer guarantees under the ACL and cannot modify or remove them. This means a reasonable consumer can expect a good to last longer than the supplier or manufacturer’s warranty period, depending on the circumstances.Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) 2022-11-02 Manufacturer warranty
The Australian Consumer Law adds roughly an extra 12 months of coverage on top of the manufacturer's warranty, so a fault appearing at three or four years is outside consumer guarantees and requires a purchased extended warranty.
In fact, under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) consumers may be protected beyond the manufacturer’s warranty period without the purchase of an extended warranty.Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) 2015-01-27 Manufacturer warranty
Consumer guarantees are warranties that all consumers can rely on when making a purchase.
Consumer guarantees are not the same as warranties, including extended warranties. Consumer guarantees are automatic and can’t be taken away. Warranties are extra promises that a business can choose to make on top of the consumer guarantees.Australian Competition and Consumer Commission 2026-07-16 Services guarantees
A minor problem under the Australian Consumer Law is anything that can be fixed within a reasonable period of time.
(e) the goods are not of acceptable quality because they are unsafe.Federal Register of Legislation (Commonwealth of Australia) — Competition and Consumer Act 2010, Schedule 2 (Australian Consumer Law), s 260(1) 2026-07-01 Minor failure
A consumer can only cancel a service if the problem is major; where the service problem is minor or can reasonably be fixed, the consumer cannot cancel.
if such a requirement is made of the supplier but the supplier refuses or fails to comply with the requirement, or fails to comply with the requirement within a reasonable time—the consumer may: (i) otherwise have the failure remedied and, by action against the supplier, recover all reasonable costs incurred by the consumer in having the failure so remedied; or (ii) terminate the contract for the supply of the services.Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Schedule 2 - Australian Consumer Law, s 267(2)(b) 2026-07-01 Cancelling a service
Displaying a policy worded 'No Refunds', 'Final Sale' or 'No Returns On Sale Items' is fine, provided the business does not separately mislead customers about their rights when goods are faulty, unsafe or misdescribed.
Signs that state 'no refunds' are unlawful, because they imply it is not possible to get a refund under any circumstance - even when there is a problem with the goods or service, like a defect or lack of due care and skill.Consumer Affairs Victoria 2023-10-13 No refunds sign
The cooling-off period for an unsolicited consumer agreement is 10 days.
if the agreement was not negotiated by telephone—the period starting on the day on which the agreement was made and ending at the end of the tenth business day after the day on which the agreement was made;Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Schedule 2 - Australian Consumer Law, s 82(3)(a) 2026-07-01 Unsolicited consumer agreements
Australian Consumer Law coverage for a TV runs for a fixed period of about two years (a manufacturer's year plus a retailer's extra year), and once that period ends the retailer has no further obligation and the consumer has no coverage.
Consumer guarantees under the ACL apply for a reasonable time and in addition to any warranties that manufacturers and/or suppliers provide for a good. This means consumer guarantees may continue to apply during the period of those warranties and after those warranties expire.ACCC and the state and territory consumer protection agencies (Guidance on the consumer guarantee: Acceptable quality and the meaning of 'durability') 2022-11-02 Durability
Once the manufacturer's warranty and the extra year the retailer attributes to consumer law have both expired, the consumer has no further coverage and must arrange and pay for their own repair.
After the warranty expires, the consumer guarantee of acceptable quality usually still applies. This means that if there’s a problem with a product, the consumer likely still has a right to a repair, refund or replacementAustralian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) 2026-06-28 Consumer guarantee
Once a product is more than about two years old, or once the warranty period has expired, the consumer must pay for repairs themselves.
Warranties against defects usually apply for a set amount of time. After the warranty expires, the consumer guarantee of acceptable quality usually still applies.Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) 2026-06-28 Repair
Where these repetitions were read Counts of repeated claims found in each publication, in the documents this sweep happened to read. It is not a ranking of publishers: a publication read more often has more chances to appear, and none of these counts say anything about what else it publishes.
choice.com.au 39 sprintlaw.com.au 33 kmart.com.au 32 legalvision.com.au 23 bunnings.com.au 16 bigw.com.au 12 thegoodguys.com.au 9 myer.com.au 6 officeworks.com.au 5 amazon.com.au 4 cars24.com.au 4 ebay.com.au 4 jbhifi.com.au 3 accc.gov.au 2 # Officeworks states that a customer must provide proof of purchase to receive a refund, replacement product or repair for a faulty product.
2026-08-16 other
1 quote from 1 source If you believe you have purchased a faulty product, you must provide proof of purchase to receive a refund, replacement product or repair. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Duplicate - our bookkeeping artefact, not an unbacked idea. This corpus already establishes the ACCC/CAV position on proof of purchase; the research recorded Officeworks' correct restatement of it alongside the primary source. CAV agrees: 'Consumers will usually need to show proof of transaction in order to make a claim about faulty products or services.' Officeworks' policy is also broader than the bare sentence quoted - the next sentence on the live page reads 'Proof of purchase may be your original register receipt, credit card statement or any other form of evidence', which matches the ACCC's and CAV's lists. Note the other half of the ACCC sentence: the same page bars any original-packaging condition on a faulty-goods remedy, matching ACL s 259(7).
The product does not have to be in its original packaging, but a business is entitled to ask consumers to provide some form of proof of purchaseAustralian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) 2026-06-28 What was searched (6) curl https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=proof%20of%20purchase (ACCC server-rendered search) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/receipts-bills-proof-of-purchase https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/consumers-and-businesses/products-and-services/refunds-repairs-and-returns/receipts-and-other-proof-of-transaction curl of Competition and Consumer Act 2010 Sch 2 (ACL) full text to disk, then grep for 'proof of transaction', 'acceptable quality', 'original packaging': https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00109/2026-07-01/2026-07-01/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_4/document_4.html https://www.officeworks.com.au/information/policies/return-policy - retrieved with a browser UA; the quoted sentence is verbatim under the 'Faulty Goods Returns' heading # Officeworks states that where a customer cannot provide satisfactory proof of purchase Officeworks may at its absolute discretion provide an exchange or a gift card to the current value of the item.
2026-08-16 other
1 quote from 1 source If you are unable to provide a satisfactory proof of purchase, Officeworks may, at its absolute discretion, provide you with an exchange or Officeworks gift card to the current value of the item. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Backed, but the scope is what makes it lawful and it is worth recording. On the live Officeworks page this clause sits inside the 'Change of mind returns - 30 days' block, between the government-ID paragraph and the list of change-of-mind exclusions. Change of mind is not a consumer guarantee remedy at all, so the retailer is free to set its own terms - the ACCC states 'Consumers are not entitled to a repair, replacement or refund under the consumer guarantees if: they got what they asked for but simply changed their mind', adding 'However, if a business has a ‘change of mind’ policy, they must follow it.' The boundary: if the same absolute-discretion gift-card clause were applied to a consumer-guarantee claim where purchase was proven and the failure was major, it would be contradicted - ACL s 259(3) gives the consumer the choice, and the ACCC says 'A refund should be the full amount the consumer paid for the product.'
If a consumer cannot show where the product or service was purchased, the supplier or manufacturer does not have to accept the claim, but may still choose to do so.Consumer Affairs Victoria 2023-10-13 What was searched (6) curl https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=proof%20of%20purchase (ACCC server-rendered search) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/receipts-bills-proof-of-purchase https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/consumers-and-businesses/products-and-services/refunds-repairs-and-returns/receipts-and-other-proof-of-transaction curl of Competition and Consumer Act 2010 Sch 2 (ACL) full text to disk, then grep for 'proof of transaction', 'acceptable quality', 'original packaging': https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00109/2026-07-01/2026-07-01/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_4/document_4.html https://www.officeworks.com.au/information/policies/return-policy - read the surrounding page structure to establish which section this clause sits in # BIG W states that returns must be accompanied by a receipt or other itemised, verifiable proof of purchase.
2026-08-16 other
1 quote from 1 source Returns must be accompanied by a receipt or other itemised, verifiable proof of purchase such as a Everyday Rewards statement. A source exists, but not for this checked 2026-08-16
Ambiguous because the two regulators sit either side of the word 'itemised', and neither the ACL nor any regulator prescribes a minimum standard of proof a supplier must accept. The ACCC lists a credit or debit card statement as an acceptable form - a card statement is not itemised - and adds 'The law doesn’t give a definition of how much proof is enough – the consumer just needs to reasonably demonstrate that they bought the item.' CAV lists the same card statement but qualifies it: 'Sometimes you may need to provide more than one of these things to support your claim – for example, when a credit card statement does not clearly itemise the product.' So BIG W's itemised-only wording is narrower than the ACCC's list and roughly consistent with CAV's practical gloss. Do not resolve. Separately, ACL s 100(4) is about what a supplier must GIVE the consumer, not what the consumer must produce to claim - its note lists 'a credit card or debit card statement' as an example of a proof of transaction.
the business can ask for a receipt or another form of proof of purchase. Other forms of proof of purchase include a: credit or debit card statementAustralian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) 2026-06-28 What was searched (6) curl https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=proof%20of%20purchase (ACCC server-rendered search) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/receipts-bills-proof-of-purchase https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/consumers-and-businesses/products-and-services/refunds-repairs-and-returns/receipts-and-other-proof-of-transaction curl of Competition and Consumer Act 2010 Sch 2 (ACL) full text to disk, then grep for 'proof of transaction', 'acceptable quality', 'original packaging': https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00109/2026-07-01/2026-07-01/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_4/document_4.html https://www.bigw.com.au/returns - retrieved with a browser UA; the quoted paragraph is verbatim and sits under the 'Returns of faulty products' heading, i.e. it governs consumer-guarantee returns, not just change of mind # BIG W states that it retains the right to refuse a refund for unverified purchases.
2026-08-16 other
1 quote from 1 source BIG W retains the right to refuse a refund for unverified purchases. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Backed, with the load-bearing caveat that 'unverified' must mean no reasonable proof of any kind, not merely 'no till receipt'. Both regulators accept a wide range of proof (card statement, lay-by agreement, phone/internet confirmation number, warranty card, serial number, photo or photocopy), and the ACCC says the consumer 'just needs to reasonably demonstrate that they bought the item'. CAV also notes the dispute route: 'If a dispute arises about whether a claim should be accepted without proof of transaction, the consumer may seek the opinion of an Australian court or tribunal.'
If a consumer cannot show where the product or service was purchased, the supplier or manufacturer does not have to accept the claim, but may still choose to do so.Consumer Affairs Victoria 2023-10-13 What was searched (6) curl https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=proof%20of%20purchase (ACCC server-rendered search) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/receipts-bills-proof-of-purchase https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/consumers-and-businesses/products-and-services/refunds-repairs-and-returns/receipts-and-other-proof-of-transaction curl of Competition and Consumer Act 2010 Sch 2 (ACL) full text to disk, then grep for 'proof of transaction', 'acceptable quality', 'original packaging': https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00109/2026-07-01/2026-07-01/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_4/document_4.html https://www.bigw.com.au/returns # Bunnings states that it…
will record a customer's proof of identification when processing returns without proof of purchase. may not be able to accept the return without the customer's proof of identification. 2026-08-16 other
1 quote from 1 source We will record your proof of identification (eg drivers' licence) when processing returns without proof of purchase. Without this, we may not be able to accept your return. Searched, nothing found checked 2026-08-16
No primary source either way. The ACL contains no provision about proof of identity for returns (grepped the full Schedule 2 text), and neither the ACCC's proof-of-purchase page nor its repair/replace/refund page nor CAV's proof-of-transaction page addresses requiring photo ID - all three speak only to proof of PURCHASE. Three ACCC site searches for identification/identity terms returned only scam, debt-collection and telco material. Context worth keeping: on the live Bunnings page this sentence sits under 'Change of mind returns/exchanges' → 'Without proof of purchase', so it governs a concession Bunnings offers beyond the ACL; the consumer-guarantee section further down ('Other returns/exchanges') uses materially softer wording - 'may record your proof of identification when processing a return without proof of purchase' - and does not say the return may be refused. The refusal sentence is therefore not, on its face, applied to guarantee claims. Any challenge to the ID collection itself would run under privacy law (OAIC/APPs), not the ACL, which is outside this corpus.
What was searched (8) curl https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=identification+returns curl https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=proof+of+identity curl https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=photo+identification https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/sitemap.xml - filtered for receipt/proof/refund/return/guarantee/identity pages https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/consumers-and-businesses/products-and-services/refunds-repairs-and-returns/receipts-and-other-proof-of-transaction grep ACL full text for 'identification', 'identity' - no provision governing proof of identity for retail returns https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel https://www.bunnings.com.au/policies/returns - retrieved with a browser UA to establish which section the sentence sits in # Bunnings states that Bunnings recommends customers retain their receipt because Bunnings may require proof that the product was purchased from Bunnings.
2026-08-16 other
1 quote from 1 source We recommend you retain your receipt, as we may require proof that you purchased the product from us. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Duplicate - the corpus already establishes this from the ACCC. Bunnings' wording is careful and correct: 'recommend' and 'proof that you purchased the product from us', not 'receipt required'. CAV puts the same point as a rationale: 'Consumers will usually need to show proof of transaction in order to make a claim about faulty products or services. This is so suppliers can be sure they are providing a remedy for a product or service they actually sold.'
The product does not have to be in its original packaging, but a business is entitled to ask consumers to provide some form of proof of purchaseAustralian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) 2026-06-28 What was searched (6) curl https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=proof%20of%20purchase (ACCC server-rendered search) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/receipts-bills-proof-of-purchase https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/consumers-and-businesses/products-and-services/refunds-repairs-and-returns/receipts-and-other-proof-of-transaction curl of Competition and Consumer Act 2010 Sch 2 (ACL) full text to disk, then grep for 'proof of transaction', 'acceptable quality', 'original packaging': https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00109/2026-07-01/2026-07-01/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_4/document_4.html https://www.bunnings.com.au/policies/returns - the quoted sentence is verbatim and sits in the 'Other returns/exchanges' (consumer guarantee) section # The Good Guys states that a customer seeking a copy of an older in-store tax invoice will be required to have the transaction date.
2026-08-16 other
1 quote from 1 source You will be required to show your ID and have the transaction date in order for us to search for an old tax invoice. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
This is an operational fact about one retailer's own record-lookup process, not a legal proposition, so the operator's own published page is both the claim and its primary source - verified verbatim on the live page. There is no regulator counterpart and none should be expected: ACL s 100 obliges a supplier to give a proof of transaction as soon as practicable for supplies of $75 or more (and within 7 days on request below that threshold), but nothing in the ACL or in ACCC/CAV guidance obliges a supplier to REISSUE a copy later, or regulates the conditions it may attach to doing so. Date recorded is the retrieval date; the page carries no publication date.
You will be required to show your ID and have the transaction date in order for us to search for an old tax invoice.The Good Guys 2026-08-17 What was searched (10) https://www.thegoodguys.com.au/returns-refunds-and-repairs - retrieved with a browser UA; the quoted sentence is verbatim on the live page grep ACL full text for 'proof of transaction' - ss 100 and 101 only https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/receipts-bills-proof-of-purchase https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/consumers-and-businesses/products-and-services/refunds-repairs-and-returns/receipts-and-other-proof-of-transaction curl https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=identification+returns curl https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=proof+of+identity curl https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=photo+identification https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/sitemap.xml - filtered for receipt/proof/refund/return/guarantee/identity pages https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/consumers-and-businesses/products-and-services/refunds-repairs-and-returns/receipts-and-other-proof-of-transaction grep ACL full text for 'identification', 'identity' - no provision governing proof of identity for retail returns # Officeworks states that satisfactory proof of purchase is the original register receipt or an online proof of purchase such as a tax invoice.
2026-08-16 other
1 quote from 1 source You produce a satisfactory proof of purchase (being your original register receipt or online proof of purchase, such as a tax invoice) Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Backed only because of where it sits, and that is the whole finding. On the live page this is a condition of Officeworks' voluntary 30-day change-of-mind offer, alongside 'within 30 days of purchase' and 're-saleable condition, including its original packaging'. Change of mind is not a guarantee remedy, so a retailer may define its own proof standard and may require original packaging. Had the same 'original register receipt' narrowing been applied to a faulty-goods claim it would conflict with the ACCC ('The consumer can provide original documents, photos or photocopies.') and with ACL s 259(7) on packaging - but Officeworks' separate 'Faulty Goods Returns' section deliberately does not narrow it, allowing 'your original register receipt, credit card statement or any other form of evidence'. The retailer has drawn the line in the right place.
However, if a business has a ‘change of mind’ policy, they must follow it.Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) 2026-06-28 What was searched (6) curl https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=proof%20of%20purchase (ACCC server-rendered search) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/receipts-bills-proof-of-purchase https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/consumers-and-businesses/products-and-services/refunds-repairs-and-returns/receipts-and-other-proof-of-transaction curl of Competition and Consumer Act 2010 Sch 2 (ACL) full text to disk, then grep for 'proof of transaction', 'acceptable quality', 'original packaging': https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00109/2026-07-01/2026-07-01/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_4/document_4.html https://www.officeworks.com.au/information/policies/return-policy - read the surrounding page structure; this bullet is one of the three conditions listed under 'Change of mind returns - 30 days' # Officeworks states that a government issued form of identification must be presented at the time of a change of mind return of a product valued over $50. Officeworks states that the government issued form of identification is presented to confirm the customer's identity. 2026-08-16 other
1 quote from 1 source A government issued form of identification must be presented at the time of the return in order to confirm your identity (for products with a value greater than $50). Searched, nothing found checked 2026-08-16
No primary source, and none is expected. Nothing in the ACL, in the ACCC's proof-of-purchase or repair/replace/refund guidance, or in CAV's proof-of-transaction page addresses requiring identification for a return; three ACCC site searches on identification/identity terms surfaced nothing on retail returns. The clause also sits inside Officeworks' voluntary 30-day change-of-mind offer, which the ACL does not govern at all - the ACCC's only rule there is that a business with a change-of-mind policy must follow it. The $50 threshold is Officeworks' own and corresponds to no statutory figure (the ACL's proof-of-transaction threshold is $75, s 100(1)(b)). Any objection to the ID collection would be a privacy matter (OAIC/APPs), not a consumer-guarantees one; Officeworks itself scopes the collection on the page, saying it will not record the licence number or date of birth.
What was searched (8) curl https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=identification+returns curl https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=proof+of+identity curl https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=photo+identification https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/sitemap.xml - filtered for receipt/proof/refund/return/guarantee/identity pages https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/consumers-and-businesses/products-and-services/refunds-repairs-and-returns/receipts-and-other-proof-of-transaction grep ACL full text for 'identification', 'identity' - no provision governing proof of identity for retail returns https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel https://www.officeworks.com.au/information/policies/return-policy - confirmed the clause is inside the change-of-mind block # Bunnings states that the original credit card must be present to receive a refund.
2026-08-16 other
1 quote from 1 source Note: Original credit card must be present to receive a refund. A source exists, but not for this checked 2026-08-16
Ambiguous: a source exists but it answers a different question. The ACCC rule is about the FORM the refund takes (money back to the card that paid, not store credit or points); it says nothing about whether the physical card must be produced at the counter, and neither does the ACL. Bunnings' own page shows it does not treat the card as strictly mandatory even for change of mind - the sentence immediately before reads 'If you do not have a receipt and are unable to produce the card that you paid with, we require proof of identity (eg driver’s licence) to issue a return'. Scope also matters: the note sits inside the change-of-mind section, which the ACL does not govern. If a consumer with a proven major failure were refused a refund solely because a card had since been cancelled or replaced, that would be a live issue under s 259(3) - but the published policy does not say that.
Refunds should be provided in the same form as the original payment, unless the business and consumer agree otherwise.Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) 2026-06-28 What was searched (8) curl https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=proof%20of%20purchase (ACCC server-rendered search) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/receipts-bills-proof-of-purchase https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/consumers-and-businesses/products-and-services/refunds-repairs-and-returns/receipts-and-other-proof-of-transaction curl of Competition and Consumer Act 2010 Sch 2 (ACL) full text to disk, then grep for 'proof of transaction', 'acceptable quality', 'original packaging': https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00109/2026-07-01/2026-07-01/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_4/document_4.html https://www.bunnings.com.au/policies/returns - the note is verbatim and sits under 'Change of mind returns/exchanges' → 'With a receipt or tax invoice' grep ACL full text for 'refund' near payment method - no provision on the form or mechanics of a refund curl https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=proof%20of%20purchase then read the repair/replace/refund page for the refund-form rule # The Good Guys states that its My Account page stores a customer's order history linked to the contact details given at purchase for up to 24 months.
2026-08-16 other
1 quote from 1 source The My Account page stores all your order history linked to those same contact details for up to 24 months. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
An operational fact about one retailer's own systems, so the operator's own page is the correct and only primary source - verified verbatim. No ACL or regulator counterpart exists: the ACL requires a supplier to give a proof of transaction at the time of supply (s 100) but sets no record-retention period, so a 24-month window is a commercial choice. Worth noting for the reader-facing angle, though: consumer guarantees can run well past 24 months for durable goods, so a retailer's own lookup window expiring does not extinguish the guarantee - the consumer can still prove purchase by the other means the ACCC and CAV list. Date recorded is the retrieval date; the page carries no publication date.
The My Account page stores all your order history linked to those same contact details for up to 24 months.The Good Guys 2026-08-17 What was searched (4) https://www.thegoodguys.com.au/returns-refunds-and-repairs - retrieved with a browser UA; the quoted sentence is verbatim on the live page grep ACL full text for 'proof of transaction' and record-retention obligations - ss 100/101 only, nothing on retention periods https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/receipts-bills-proof-of-purchase https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/consumers-and-businesses/products-and-services/refunds-repairs-and-returns/receipts-and-other-proof-of-transaction # Kmart states that it…
will accept returns of Kmart branded products that meet consumer guarantee return requirements without proof of purchase. provides an exchange voucher in cases where it accepts returns of Kmart branded products that meet consumer guarantee return requirements without proof of purchase. 2025-10-01 other
1 quote from 1 source Kmart will accept returns of Kmart branded products (Anko, OXX, etc) that meet consumer guarantee return requirements without proof of purchase. In such cases, an exchange voucher will be provided. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Backed, and worth flagging as a policy that is MORE generous than the law requires rather than less. Both regulators say a business is entitled to ask for proof of purchase and need not accept a claim without it; Kmart voluntarily waives that for its own brands, which CAV expressly permits ('but may still choose to do so'). The voucher-only outcome is lawful for the same reason: without proof of purchase the guarantee entitlement is never established, so the voucher is a goodwill offer sitting outside the ACL. The boundary is sharp - where purchase IS proven and the failure is major, ACL s 259(3) puts the choice with the consumer and the ACCC states 'Refunds should be provided in the same form as the original payment, unless the business and consumer agree otherwise', so an exchange voucher could not be imposed. Kmart's policy does not claim otherwise. Target's equivalent policy is identical in structure, offering a 'Target Returns Card'.
If a consumer cannot show where the product or service was purchased, the supplier or manufacturer does not have to accept the claim, but may still choose to do so.Consumer Affairs Victoria 2023-10-13 What was searched (6) curl https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=proof%20of%20purchase (ACCC server-rendered search) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/receipts-bills-proof-of-purchase https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/consumers-and-businesses/products-and-services/refunds-repairs-and-returns/receipts-and-other-proof-of-transaction curl of Competition and Consumer Act 2010 Sch 2 (ACL) full text to disk, then grep for 'proof of transaction', 'acceptable quality', 'original packaging': https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00109/2026-07-01/2026-07-01/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_4/document_4.html https://www.kmart.com.au/consumer-guarantee-returns-policy/ - retrieved by curl, quote verbatim under 'Consumer guarantee proof of purchase requirements' # Kmart states that non-Kmart branded products require adequate proof of purchase. Kmart states that proof of purchase in the form of a photo of the receipt must include the barcode. 2025-10-01 other
2 quotes from 1 source Non-Kmart branded products require adequate proof of purchase, including: A clear photo of the full Kmart receipt, which must include the barcode; Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Duplicate of the corpus's established ACCC/CAV position on proof of purchase. Kmart's accepted list is broader than a paper receipt (receipt or digital receipt in the app or online account, a clear photo of the receipt, a digital gift receipt, an online tax invoice or order confirmation, a OnePass statement), which is consistent with the ACCC's 'The consumer can provide original documents, photos or photocopies.' The barcode requirement is Kmart operational detail with no regulator counterpart; the closest regulator standard is CAV's legibility test quoted above and the ACCC's 'reasonably demonstrate that they bought the item', neither of which would obviously licence refusing an otherwise legible photo that happened to crop the barcode. Not enough to call it contradicted, but it is the one part of the clause the regulators do not underwrite.
Electronic copies and digital photographs are valid proof of transaction; however, they must be clear enough to show the purchase details.Consumer Affairs Victoria 2023-10-13 What was searched (6) curl https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=proof%20of%20purchase (ACCC server-rendered search) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/receipts-bills-proof-of-purchase https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/consumers-and-businesses/products-and-services/refunds-repairs-and-returns/receipts-and-other-proof-of-transaction curl of Competition and Consumer Act 2010 Sch 2 (ACL) full text to disk, then grep for 'proof of transaction', 'acceptable quality', 'original packaging': https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00109/2026-07-01/2026-07-01/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_4/document_4.html https://www.kmart.com.au/consumer-guarantee-returns-policy/ - both quoted lines verbatim # Target said that photocopied receipts are not accepted as proof of purchase when returning a faulty product.
2015-12-28 other
1 quote from 1 source We photocopied a receipt like some of the stores tell us to do, but when we went to return a faulty product to Target, it said it doesn’t accept photocopied receipts. The primary source says otherwise checked 2026-08-16
Contradicted twice over, and the retelling is weaker than it looks. First, provenance: the quote is not a published Target policy - it is a CHOICE member's comment in CHOICE's 'Faded receipts and proof of purchase' article, describing one store's conduct. Second, both regulators say photocopies count: the ACCC quote above, and Consumer Affairs Victoria (13 Oct 2023, same URL as CAV_POT) lists 'copy or photograph of the receipt' among acceptable proofs and adds 'Electronic copies and digital photographs are valid proof of transaction; however, they must be clear enough to show the purchase details.' Third, Target's own current published policy contradicts the anecdote: it accepts 'A clear photo of the full Target receipt, which must include the barcode;'. The only lawful qualification a retailer can attach is legibility, not the medium.
The consumer can provide original documents, photos or photocopies.Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) 2026-06-28 What was searched (10) curl https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=proof%20of%20purchase (ACCC server-rendered search) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/receipts-bills-proof-of-purchase https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/consumers-and-businesses/products-and-services/refunds-repairs-and-returns/receipts-and-other-proof-of-transaction curl of Competition and Consumer Act 2010 Sch 2 (ACL) full text to disk, then grep for 'proof of transaction', 'acceptable quality', 'original packaging': https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00109/2026-07-01/2026-07-01/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_4/document_4.html https://www.choice.com.au/shopping/consumer-rights-and-advice/your-rights/buying-guides/faded-receipts - located the source of the quote (a CHOICE member comment, attributed to Nicole Lewis), not a Target policy document https://www.target.com.au/help/returns (404) https://www.target.com.au/customer-service/returns-and-refunds (404) https://www.target.com.au/c/help/returns-and-refunds (403 bot block) https://www.kmart.com.au/target-consumer-guarantee-returns-policy/ - Target's current published consumer-guarantee returns policy, served by Kmart Group and reachable by curl # BIG W states that…
Marketplace items cannot be returned or refunded in-store. all returns of Marketplace items must be arranged online. 2026-08-16 other
1 quote from 1 source Marketplace items cannot be returned or refunded in-store. All returns must be arranged online. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
The assertion is about what BIG W publishes, so BIG W's own live policy page is the primary source; I re-fetched it and the sentence is verbatim, and it appears twice (once in the Marketplace Returns Policy section, once as a closing reminder). Both retellings (items 1 and 2 in the brief) are the two halves of one sentence, so they are one idea. This is a corpus duplicate: scratchpad/batch/task-001.json already records 'BIG W states that Marketplace items cannot be returned or refunded in-store and that all such returns must be arranged online' with the identical quote - our bookkeeping, not an unbacked idea. On lawfulness: the ACL does not prescribe a return channel, and the ACCC states that on a marketplace the guarantee runs against the seller and not the platform ('So, your consumer guarantees rights apply to the seller you buy from, not the platform itself.', https://www.accc.gov.au/business/selling-products-and-services/selling-online), so routing Marketplace returns away from BIG W stores is not contradicted. Worth flagging only that BIG W states this as a blanket rule that sits after the section confirming ACL guarantees apply to Marketplace items.
Marketplace items cannot be returned or refunded in-store. All returns must be arranged online.BIG W (Woolworths Group) 2026-08-17 What was searched (4) curl https://www.bigw.com.au/returns - HTTP 200, quote verified verbatim in rendered text 2026-08-17 curl https://www.accc.gov.au/business/selling-products-and-services/selling-online - checked whether a regulator requires an in-store return channel https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=online%20marketplace%20returns corpus check: scratchpad/batch/task-001.json already holds this as a documented-position claim quoting the same sentence # BIG W states that an accepted change of mind return attracts a flat $15 return fee deducted from the final refund.
2026-08-16 other
1 quote from 1 source If a change of mind return is accepted, a flat $15 return fee will apply and will be deducted from your final refund. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Verbatim on the live page, inside the 'Change of Mind Returns' subsection of the Marketplace Returns Policy. Lawful, and this is the distinction the corpus already establishes elsewhere: change of mind is not a consumer-guarantee remedy at all, so a retailer may attach conditions and fees to it. BIG W scopes the fee correctly - the same page says separately 'Items sold on Marketplace come with guarantees under the Australian Consumer Law.' Duplicate of an existing corpus claim.
If a change of mind return is accepted, a flat $15 return fee will apply and will be deducted from your final refund.BIG W (Woolworths Group) 2026-08-17 What was searched (3) curl https://www.bigw.com.au/returns - HTTP 200, quote verified verbatim 2026-08-17 grep of corpus capture scratchpad/raw/task-000-bigw-returns.txt line 138 - same sentence corpus check: scratchpad/batch/task-001.json holds the same claim as a documented position # Bunnings states that Marketplace purchases should be returned by contacting the third party seller named on the order confirmation directly.
2026-08-16 other
1 quote from 1 source Marketplace purchases should be returned by contacting the relevant third party Seller named on your order confirmation directly. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Verbatim on the live page under 'Marketplace returns / exchanges'. The next sentence, which the retelling drops, is a material softener: 'If the Seller is unable or unwilling to accept a return, please contact customersupport@bunnings.com.au for further assistance.' Consistent with the ACCC's position that guarantee rights on a marketplace run against the seller, not the platform. Corpus duplicate.
Marketplace purchases should be returned by contacting the relevant third party Seller named on your order confirmation directly.Bunnings Group Limited 2026-08-17 What was searched (3) curl https://www.bunnings.com.au/policies/returns - HTTP 200, quote verified verbatim 2026-08-17 (page is reachable to curl despite being JS-heavy) curl https://www.accc.gov.au/business/selling-products-and-services/selling-online corpus check: scratchpad/batch/task-001.json holds the same claim # Amazon Australia states that its change of mind return policy allows most unused and unopened items fulfilled by Amazon AU or AmazonGlobal to be returned within 30 days of receipt of delivery.
2026-08-16 other
1 quote from 1 source You may return most unused and unopened items fulfilled by Amazon AU or AmazonGlobal within 30 days of receipt of delivery for a full refund of the price you paid for the item if you change your mind, provided you comply with the conditions below. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Amazon's own help page is the primary source for what Amazon's policy is, and the sentence is verbatim on the live page. This is a voluntary change-of-mind window sitting above the law - the ACL requires no change-of-mind period at all - so there is nothing for the ACCC or the Act to contradict. Corpus duplicate.
You may return most unused and unopened items fulfilled by Amazon AU or AmazonGlobal within 30 days of receipt of delivery for a full refund of the price you paid for the item if you change your mind, provided you comply with the conditions below.Amazon Australia (Amazon Commercial Services Pty Ltd) 2026-08-17 What was searched (2) curl 'https://www.amazon.com.au/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=GKM69DUUYKQWKWX7' - HTTP 200, quote verified verbatim 2026-08-17 corpus check: scratchpad/batch/task-001.json holds the same claim with the same quote # Amazon Australia states that its return policies do not limit other rights and remedies a customer may have under law such as the Australian Consumer Law.
2026-08-16 other
1 quote from 1 source Our return policies do not limit other rights and remedies you may have under law such as the Australian Consumer Law, including in respect of faulty items. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Verbatim on the live page. It is also the only thing Amazon could lawfully say: ACL s 64(1) makes a contract term void 'to the extent that the term purports to exclude, restrict or modify, or has the effect of excluding, restricting or modifying ... any liability of a person for a failure to comply with a guarantee that applies under this Division to a supply of goods or services' (Competition and Consumer Act 2010 Sch 2, compilation 2026-07-01). So the retailer statement is backed twice over - by its own page and by the statute behind it. Corpus duplicate.
Our return policies do not limit other rights and remedies you may have under law such as the Australian Consumer Law, including in respect of faulty items.Amazon Australia (Amazon Commercial Services Pty Ltd) 2026-08-17 What was searched (3) curl 'https://www.amazon.com.au/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=GKM69DUUYKQWKWX7' - HTTP 200, quote verified verbatim 2026-08-17 grep of ACL text (legislation.gov.au C2004A00109 compilation 2026-07-01) for s 64 'Guarantees not to be excluded etc. by contract' corpus check: scratchpad/batch/task-001.json holds the same claim # Kmart states that returns of products purchased from marketplace sellers on its site can only be processed online and cannot be returned to or processed by Kmart stores.
2026-08-16 other
1 quote from 1 source Return of products purchased from marketplace sellers on kmart.com.au can only be processed online and cannot be returned to or processed by Kmart stores. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Verbatim on the live page, which carries 'Policy effective date: October 2025'. Same shape as the BIG W and Bunnings marketplace claims and consistent with the ACCC's stated position that the guarantee runs against the marketplace seller, not the platform. No ACL provision prescribes a return channel. Corpus duplicate.
Return of products purchased from marketplace sellers on kmart.com.au can only be processed online and cannot be returned to or processed by Kmart stores.Kmart Australia Limited 2025-10-01 What was searched (3) curl https://www.kmart.com.au/marketplace-returns-policy/ - HTTP 200, quote verified verbatim 2026-08-17 curl https://www.accc.gov.au/business/selling-products-and-services/selling-online - checked for any regulator requirement of an in-store channel corpus check: scratchpad/batch/task-001.json holds the same claim # Kmart states that, for online purchases, the marketplace seller will notify the customer of the return costs beforehand.
2026-08-16 other
1 quote from 1 source Return costs will be incurred by you. The marketplace seller will notify you of any costs associated with returns before they are incurred by you. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Verbatim, but the scope matters and the brief's paraphrase ('for online purchases') drops it. On the live page this sentence sits under the heading 'Marketplace change of mind requirements', immediately after 'Definitions of marketplace returns' which separates change of mind from consumer-guarantee returns. Kmart's separate 'Marketplace consumer guarantee returns' section says the opposite for faulty goods: 'Return shipping costs will not be incurred by you if the product is confirmed to a breach of Australian Consumer Law.' So the policy is lawful as published; only an unscoped retelling of it would be contradicted. The corpus's own claim keeps the scope, so this is a duplicate with the scope preserved upstream.
Return costs will be incurred by you. The marketplace seller will notify you of any costs associated with returns before they are incurred by you.Kmart Australia Limited 2025-10-01 What was searched (4) curl https://www.kmart.com.au/marketplace-returns-policy/ - HTTP 200, quote verified verbatim 2026-08-17, and read the surrounding section headings grep of the same page for the consumer-guarantee section to establish scope grep of ACL text (compilation 2026-07-01) around ss 259-263 for who bears return cost corpus check: scratchpad/batch/task-001.json records this scoped correctly as 'a customer returning a marketplace product for change of mind bears the return costs' # Bunnings states that online purchases can be returned…
in-store with the tax invoice. by contacting its customer support team. 2026-08-16 other
1 quote from 1 source Online purchases can be returned either in-store with the tax invoice or by contacting our Customer Support team at customersupport@bunnings.com.au. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Items 9 and 10 in the brief are the two limbs of one sentence, so one idea. Verbatim on the live page under 'Change of mind returns/exchanges' > 'Online purchases/exchanges' - i.e. this is Bunnings' voluntary change-of-mind channel, not its ACL channel, which the retelling does not say. More generous than the law requires (the ACL prescribes no return channel), so nothing to contradict. Corpus duplicate.
Online purchases can be returned either in-store with the tax invoice or by contacting our Customer Support team at customersupport@bunnings.com.au.Bunnings Group Limited 2026-08-17 What was searched (3) curl https://www.bunnings.com.au/policies/returns - HTTP 200, quote verified verbatim 2026-08-17 (initial exact-substring match failed only because the email is a mailto link; text extraction inserts a space before the full stop) grep of corpus capture scratchpad/raw/task-001-bunnings-returns2.txt line 988 - same sentence corpus check: scratchpad/batch/task-001.json holds the same claim # eBay states that online purchases made on eBay.com.au and paid for at eBay checkout are covered by the eBay Money Back Guarantee. eBay states that the eBay Money Back Guarantee for online purchases made on eBay.com.au and paid for at eBay checkout lasts for 30 days from the estimated or actual delivery date. 2026-05-12 other
1 quote from 1 source When you shop on eBay.com.au and pay at eBay checkout, your purchase is covered by eBay Money Back Guarantee for 30 days from the estimated or actual delivery date. Not yet checked
Nobody has gone looking for a source for this one yet, so it says nothing either way.
# eBay states that for…
most online purchases, a buyer has 30 calendar days from the delivery date to request a return. online purchases, a buyer may have a longer period to request a return where the seller offers a longer return window. 2026-05-12 other
1 quote from 1 source For most purchases, you have 30 calendar days from the delivery date to request a return, but you may have more time if the seller offers a longer return window. Not yet checked
Nobody has gone looking for a source for this one yet, so it says nothing either way.
# Myer states that Myer offers refunds or exchanges on most items within 30 days of purchase when a customer has changed their mind.
2026-08-16 other
1 quote from 1 source If you’ve changed your mind, we offer refunds or exchanges on most items within 30 days of purchase. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Backed as lawful, and the regulator names a time limit as the model example of a permitted one - CAV's own illustration is 'No change-of-mind refunds after seven days', far shorter than either retailer's. The numbers themselves (60 / 365 / 30 days) have no primary source and need none: they are each retailer's voluntary commercial offer, not a restatement of law, and the retailer's own published policy page IS the primary source for them. I verified both pages serve static HTML to plain curl and that each figure appears verbatim. Kmart's page is correctly scoped - it opens by defining change of mind and redirects faulty goods away: "If you are returning because your product is faulty or doesn’t meet consumer guarantees, refer instead to the Consumer Guarantee policy." Myer's is too: "Our policy including the change of mind limits do not exclude or replace your rights under Consumer Guarantees of the Australian Consumer Law, regulations or otherwise as required by law." Neither window may be applied to a guarantee claim - a consumer guarantee runs for a reasonable time set by the nature of the good, not by a store's return window - but neither retailer purports to do that. The trap to avoid here is reading a 30- or 60-day return window as a cap on ACL rights; on these two pages it is not.
It is okay for an in-store policy to have some limits, such as: 'No change-of-mind refunds on sale items' 'No change-of-mind refunds after seven days'. However, the in-store policy cannot take away the customer’s rights under the Australian Consumer Law.Consumer Affairs Victoria (CAV) 2023-10-13 What was searched (5) https://www.kmart.com.au/change-of-mind-returns-policy/ (fetched with curl and a browser UA; static HTML, both figures verified verbatim) https://www.myer.com.au/returns (fetched with curl; static HTML, 30-day figure verified verbatim) https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/consumers-and-businesses/products-and-services/business-practices/store-policies/change-of-mind https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel ACL text grepped for any statutory change-of-mind return window (none exists): https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00109/2026-07-01/2026-07-01/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_4/document_4.html # Myer states that change of mind returns will not be accepted on merchandise designated as a clearance item.
2026-08-16 other
1 quote from 1 source Please choose carefully when purchasing merchandise designated as a clearance item (either marked as clearance or reduced to clear) as change of mind returns will not be accepted. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Backed, and Myer's clearance clause is close to a word-for-word match with the exclusion CAV names as expressly permitted. Three words decide this one. 'No refunds on clearance items' would be unlawful; 'change of mind returns will not be accepted' on clearance items is fine, and that is exactly what Myer wrote. Myer then makes the boundary explicit for its other exclusions: "Returns and exchanges will not be provided on the following types of merchandise unless the product fail to meet a consumer guarantee" (sic - Myer's own grammar). CAV's companion page on sale items marks the other side of the line: "Consumers have the same legal refund rights on sale items as they would have on full-price products. Stores and sellers cannot take away these rights by claiming they have a ‘no refund’ policy for sale items, or displaying a ‘no refund’ sign." (2023-10-13). Kmart's category list is likewise scoped to change of mind by the page it sits on, and most entries are hygiene- or seal-based (cosmetics 'unless the hygiene seal is intact', printer cartridges 'unless the seal is intact', mobile phones 'unless the packaging is unopened') - conditions with an obvious resale rationale that say nothing about faulty goods. Be aware this touches a regulator-vs-regulator disagreement already logged in this corpus: the ACCC states flatly that 'no refunds or exchanges on sale items' policies are illegal, while CAV expressly permits the change-of-mind-scoped version. Both retailers here wrote the CAV-permitted version. Do not resolve that disagreement on the strength of these pages.
It is okay for an in-store policy to have some limits, such as: 'No change-of-mind refunds on sale items' 'No change-of-mind refunds after seven days'. However, the in-store policy cannot take away the customer’s rights under the Australian Consumer Law.Consumer Affairs Victoria (CAV) 2023-10-13 What was searched (5) https://www.kmart.com.au/change-of-mind-returns-policy/ (full exclusion list extracted and read) https://www.myer.com.au/returns (clearance clause and full exclusion list extracted and read) https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/consumers-and-businesses/products-and-services/business-practices/store-policies/change-of-mind https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/consumers-and-businesses/products-and-services/refunds-repairs-and-returns/sales-seconds-factory-outlets-second-hand/sales-items-refunds https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel # Myer states that sales to individuals it believes to be resellers or bulk purchasers are final sales to which the change of mind policy does not apply.
2026-08-16 other
1 quote from 1 source Sales to individuals who Myer believes to be resellers or bulk purchasers are final sales, and the change of mind policy does not apply. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Backed twice over, and this one has a stronger primary source than the rest of the brief. First, as with every other clause here, restricting a purely voluntary change-of-mind policy is a permitted limit under CAV's rule. Second - and this is the part worth knowing - a person who acquires goods for the purpose of re-supply is excluded from the statutory definition of 'consumer' by ACL s 3(2)(a)(i), quoted above, so a genuine reseller has no consumer guarantees to be taken away in the first place. Myer's carve-out therefore does not even brush against the ACL. Two cautions on the reasoning, neither of which changes the status. The exclusion turns on the purchaser's actual purpose (or holding out), not on a retailer's belief, so 'individuals who Myer believes to be resellers' is a commercial screening test and not a legal finding - if Myer guessed wrong about an ordinary shopper buying in quantity for personal use, that shopper keeps their full guarantee rights. And bulk purchasing alone is not re-supply: someone buying 100 units for household or personal use remains a consumer under s 3(1)(b). Since the clause is scoped to the change-of-mind policy only, neither caution bites. Kmart has the equivalent clause, excluding change-of-mind returns on orders of 100 units or more of any one product.
(2) However, subsection (1) does not apply if the person acquired the goods, or held himself or herself out as acquiring the goods: (a) for the following purpose: (i) for goods other than gift cards—for the purpose of re‑supply;Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Schedule 2 - Australian Consumer Law, s 3(2), Federal Register of Legislation 2026-07-01 What was searched (4) https://www.myer.com.au/returns (quote verified verbatim) https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00109/2026-07-01/2026-07-01/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_4/document_4.html (s 3 'Meaning of consumer' read in full; note the Act uses U+2011 non-breaking hyphens, so 're-supply' must be normalised before grepping) https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/consumers-and-businesses/products-and-services/business-practices/store-policies/change-of-mind https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel # Myer states that Myer may refuse to accept change of mind returns from a customer where Myer identifies an unreasonable or excessive return pattern.
2026-08-16 other
1 quote from 1 source Myer may refuse to accept items returned for Change of Mind if we identify an unreasonable or excessive return pattern Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Backed as a permitted limit, with one boundary to keep visible. There is no rule in the ACL or in either regulator's guidance about return frequency, because a change-of-mind return is a gift the retailer is choosing to give and it may withhold it. Myer's stated rationale is fraud and abuse prevention: "To ensure a positive shopping experience for all customers and to prevent fraud, abuse and misuse of this policy, Myer may refuse to accept items returned for Change of Mind if we identify an unreasonable or excessive return pattern and may also restrict or refuse future transactions from such individuals." The clause is expressly confined to Change of Mind. That confinement is what makes it lawful, and the same clause applied to guarantee claims would not be: a consumer's rights under the guarantees attach to each individual faulty product and cannot be forfeited by the consumer's history, since - as the ACCC puts it - "The basic rights covered by consumer guarantees can’t be taken away by anything a business says or does." A shopper flagged as an excessive returner who then buys a genuinely faulty item still has a full right to a repair, replacement or refund on it.
It is okay for an in-store policy to have some limits, such as: 'No change-of-mind refunds on sale items' 'No change-of-mind refunds after seven days'. However, the in-store policy cannot take away the customer’s rights under the Australian Consumer Law.Consumer Affairs Victoria (CAV) 2023-10-13 What was searched (5) https://www.myer.com.au/returns (quote verified verbatim with its surrounding paragraph) https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/consumers-and-businesses/products-and-services/business-practices/store-policies/change-of-mind https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/consumer-rights-and-guarantees https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00109/2026-07-01/2026-07-01/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_4/document_4.html (searched for any provision on return frequency or refusal of service - none) # Kmart states that a change of mind product must be returned within 60 days of purchase. Kmart states that for a OnePass Member, a change of mind product must be returned within 365 days of purchase. 2025-10-01 other
1 quote from 1 source You must return the product/s within 60 days of purchase, or 365 days if you are a OnePass Member Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Backed as lawful, and the regulator names a time limit as the model example of a permitted one - CAV's own illustration is 'No change-of-mind refunds after seven days', far shorter than either retailer's. The numbers themselves (60 / 365 / 30 days) have no primary source and need none: they are each retailer's voluntary commercial offer, not a restatement of law, and the retailer's own published policy page IS the primary source for them. I verified both pages serve static HTML to plain curl and that each figure appears verbatim. Kmart's page is correctly scoped - it opens by defining change of mind and redirects faulty goods away: "If you are returning because your product is faulty or doesn’t meet consumer guarantees, refer instead to the Consumer Guarantee policy." Myer's is too: "Our policy including the change of mind limits do not exclude or replace your rights under Consumer Guarantees of the Australian Consumer Law, regulations or otherwise as required by law." Neither window may be applied to a guarantee claim - a consumer guarantee runs for a reasonable time set by the nature of the good, not by a store's return window - but neither retailer purports to do that. The trap to avoid here is reading a 30- or 60-day return window as a cap on ACL rights; on these two pages it is not.
It is okay for an in-store policy to have some limits, such as: 'No change-of-mind refunds on sale items' 'No change-of-mind refunds after seven days'. However, the in-store policy cannot take away the customer’s rights under the Australian Consumer Law.Consumer Affairs Victoria (CAV) 2023-10-13 What was searched (5) https://www.kmart.com.au/change-of-mind-returns-policy/ (fetched with curl and a browser UA; static HTML, both figures verified verbatim) https://www.myer.com.au/returns (fetched with curl; static HTML, 30-day figure verified verbatim) https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/consumers-and-businesses/products-and-services/business-practices/store-policies/change-of-mind https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel ACL text grepped for any statutory change-of-mind return window (none exists): https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00109/2026-07-01/2026-07-01/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_4/document_4.html # Kmart states that a change of mind return must be in resaleable condition. Kmart states that for a change of mind return, resaleable condition means the item is in its original packaging including instruction manuals and all accessories. 2025-10-01 other
1 quote from 1 source The product must be in resaleable condition, meaning: - It is in its original packaging, including instruction manuals and all accessories; and Backing found checked 2026-08-16
This is the claim most likely to be marked contradicted by mistake, and it is NOT. ACL s 259(7) reads "The consumer may take action under this section whether or not the goods are in their original packaging." (verified verbatim in the Act, compilation in force 2026-07-01), and the ACCC restates it: "The product does not have to be in its original packaging, but a business is entitled to ask consumers to provide some form of proof of purchase, such as a receipt." But s 259 is the remedies-against-suppliers section - it governs a FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A GUARANTEE. Change of mind is not a guarantee failure, so s 259(7) never engages, and a packaging condition on a voluntary return is a permitted limit under CAV's rule above. Kmart itself draws the line correctly and explicitly: the policy is titled 'Kmart change of mind returns policy', it defines the scope ("A return is considered change of mind if you wish to return a product because you have changed your mind or need a different size, colour or style.") and it routes faulty goods elsewhere ("If you are returning because your product is faulty or doesn’t meet consumer guarantees, refer instead to the Consumer Guarantee policy."). The same words in a faulty-goods policy would be flatly unlawful. Note s 259(7) has a twin at s 271(7) for actions against manufacturers - same rule, same limitation to guarantee claims.
It is okay for an in-store policy to have some limits, such as: 'No change-of-mind refunds on sale items' 'No change-of-mind refunds after seven days'. However, the in-store policy cannot take away the customer’s rights under the Australian Consumer Law.Consumer Affairs Victoria (CAV) 2023-10-13 What was searched (4) https://www.kmart.com.au/change-of-mind-returns-policy/ (full policy text extracted and read; scoping language verified) https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00109/2026-07-01/2026-07-01/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_4/document_4.html (downloaded 4.2MB to file, tag-stripped, grepped 'original packaging' - 2 hits, ss 259(7) and 271(7)) https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/consumers-and-businesses/products-and-services/business-practices/store-policies/change-of-mind https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel # Kmart states that change of mind returns will not be accepted for a list of product categories.
2025-10-01 other
2 quotes from 1 source Change of mind returns will not be accepted for the following product categories: Mobile phones and mobile internet modems, unless the packaging is unopened Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Backed, and Myer's clearance clause is close to a word-for-word match with the exclusion CAV names as expressly permitted. Three words decide this one. 'No refunds on clearance items' would be unlawful; 'change of mind returns will not be accepted' on clearance items is fine, and that is exactly what Myer wrote. Myer then makes the boundary explicit for its other exclusions: "Returns and exchanges will not be provided on the following types of merchandise unless the product fail to meet a consumer guarantee" (sic - Myer's own grammar). CAV's companion page on sale items marks the other side of the line: "Consumers have the same legal refund rights on sale items as they would have on full-price products. Stores and sellers cannot take away these rights by claiming they have a ‘no refund’ policy for sale items, or displaying a ‘no refund’ sign." (2023-10-13). Kmart's category list is likewise scoped to change of mind by the page it sits on, and most entries are hygiene- or seal-based (cosmetics 'unless the hygiene seal is intact', printer cartridges 'unless the seal is intact', mobile phones 'unless the packaging is unopened') - conditions with an obvious resale rationale that say nothing about faulty goods. Be aware this touches a regulator-vs-regulator disagreement already logged in this corpus: the ACCC states flatly that 'no refunds or exchanges on sale items' policies are illegal, while CAV expressly permits the change-of-mind-scoped version. Both retailers here wrote the CAV-permitted version. Do not resolve that disagreement on the strength of these pages.
It is okay for an in-store policy to have some limits, such as: 'No change-of-mind refunds on sale items' 'No change-of-mind refunds after seven days'. However, the in-store policy cannot take away the customer’s rights under the Australian Consumer Law.Consumer Affairs Victoria (CAV) 2023-10-13 What was searched (5) https://www.kmart.com.au/change-of-mind-returns-policy/ (full exclusion list extracted and read) https://www.myer.com.au/returns (clearance clause and full exclusion list extracted and read) https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/consumers-and-businesses/products-and-services/business-practices/store-policies/change-of-mind https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/consumers-and-businesses/products-and-services/refunds-repairs-and-returns/sales-seconds-factory-outlets-second-hand/sales-items-refunds https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel # Kmart states that for change of mind returns the delivery fee is non-refundable.
2025-10-01 other
1 quote from 1 source For change of mind returns, the delivery fee is non-refundable. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Backed as a permitted limit on a voluntary policy - a business that need not offer the return at all may offer it on terms that stop short of a full refund of freight. Neither the ACL nor either regulator says anything about delivery fees on change-of-mind returns, because there is nothing to say. The contrast with faulty goods is sharp and worth carrying, because it is where a reader will most easily go wrong: for a genuine guarantee failure the cost position reverses and the business pays. The ACCC: "If the business confirms that the product does have a problem, it must reimburse the consumer for any reasonable return costs they have already paid." and "Businesses are responsible for paying for the shipping costs or collecting faulty products that are large, heavy or hard to remove" (https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel, 2026-06-28). Kmart's own policy separately imposes a collection fee for white goods and big-and-bulky change-of-mind returns, which is the same lawful arrangement and would be unlawful applied to a faulty product in those categories.
It is okay for an in-store policy to have some limits, such as: 'No change-of-mind refunds on sale items' 'No change-of-mind refunds after seven days'. However, the in-store policy cannot take away the customer’s rights under the Australian Consumer Law.Consumer Affairs Victoria (CAV) 2023-10-13 What was searched (4) https://www.kmart.com.au/change-of-mind-returns-policy/ (quote verified verbatim) https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/consumers-and-businesses/products-and-services/business-practices/store-policies/change-of-mind https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel (read the 'Responsibility for returning products' and 'Return costs' sections in full) https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00109/2026-07-01/2026-07-01/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_4/document_4.html (ss 259-263 read for any rule on delivery or return costs) # CHOICE states that neither a customer's change of mind nor finding a better deal somewhere else obligates a store to take a product back.
2023-01-31 other
1 quote from 1 source However, stores are under no obligation to take your product back if you’ve changed your mind or found a better deal somewhere else. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
DUPLICATE - CHOICE restating a rule the corpus already establishes from the ACCC. Our bookkeeping artefact, not an unbacked idea. Both national and state regulators say it in almost the same words, including CHOICE's 'found a better deal somewhere else' clause, which the ACCC covers as 'found the product cheaper somewhere else'. Consumer Affairs Victoria agrees: "Generally, a store does not have to give a refund or replacement if a customer simply changes their mind about a product." (https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/consumers-and-businesses/products-and-services/business-practices/store-policies/change-of-mind, 2023-10-13). This is the load-bearing finding for the whole subject: because change of mind sits outside the consumer guarantees entirely, the statutory protections that govern faulty-goods remedies - notably ACL s 259(7) on original packaging - simply do not reach it. Every other finding in this brief turns on that. The one obligation that does bite is the second sentence: a business that publishes a change-of-mind policy must honour it. CAV puts the same duty as "Stores that have such policies must abide by them."
Consumers are not entitled to a repair, replacement or refund under the consumer guarantees if: they got what they asked for but simply changed their mind, found the product cheaper somewhere else, or decided they didn't like the purchase or had no use for it. However, if a business has a ‘change of mind’ policy, they must follow it.Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) 2026-06-28 What was searched (6) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=changed%20your%20mind%20refund%20not%20entitled https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/sitemap.xml (grepped for 'mind' to locate the CAV page) https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/consumers-and-businesses/products-and-services/business-practices/store-policies/change-of-mind https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/consumers-and-businesses/products-and-services/refunds-repairs-and-returns https://www.choice.com.au/shopping/consumer-rights-and-advice/your-rights/articles/refunds-and-returns-your-rights # JB Hi-Fi states on its Extra Care page that the exact duration of Australian Consumer Law rights…
is uncertain. does not provide the certainty that JB Hi-Fi Extra Care provides. 2026-08-16 other
1 quote from 1 source However, the exact duration of ACL rights is uncertain and do not provide the certainty that JB Hi-Fi Extra Care provides. A source exists, but not for this checked 2026-08-16
Ambiguous rather than contradicted, and the reason is worth stating precisely because it is easy to get wrong. FIRST HALF - "the exact duration of ACL rights is uncertain" - is accurate. The ACCC says the same thing in the quote above: duration is assessed case by case, not fixed. Marking this contradicted would be wrong. SECOND HALF - "do not provide the certainty that JB Hi-Fi Extra Care provides" - is the framing the ACCC has penalised elsewhere (Fisher & Paykel / Domestic & General, $200,000 each, for representing that protection lapses without a purchased extended warranty), and the ACCC warns consumers that extended warranties "may not offer any additional benefits to what is already automatically provided under the ACL" (whitegoods media release, 2026-04-24). BUT the full paragraph on JB Hi-Fi's page - which the extracted claim truncates - is materially more compliant than the excerpt suggests. It reads in full: "Even if you don’t purchase JB Hi-Fi Extra Care, you may be entitled to a repair or replacement under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) (even after the manufacturer’s warranty and JB Hi-Fi Minimum Voluntary Warranty period have expired). However, the exact duration of ACL rights is uncertain and do not provide the certainty that JB Hi-Fi Extra Care provides." The leading sentence discloses exactly what the ACCC's durability guidance calls best practice - telling the consumer their guarantees survive warranty expiry. So a primary source exists but does not cleanly say this page is either right or wrong: it endorses half the sentence and disapproves of the other half's framing while JB Hi-Fi has made the disclosure that mitigates it. Do not resolve this one; the honest reading is that the excerpt is more damning than the page.
There are no set rules for deciding whether a product is of acceptable quality, or how long a product should last for.Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) 2026-07-16 What was searched (6) https://www.jbhifi.com.au/pages/extracare (fetched with a browser UA; static HTML returned, quote verified present verbatim) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/consumer-rights-and-guarantees https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/warranties https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/acl-consumer-guarantee-guidance-durability.pdf https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/fisher-paykel-and-domestic-general-to-each-pay-200000-for-false-or-misleading-extended-warranty-representations https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/rising-contacts-raise-concerns-about-electronics-and-whitegoods-sector-compliance-with-consumer-guarantee-rights # BIG W states in its returns policy that a customer wishing to make a claim under a manufacturer's warranty can do so directly with the relevant manufacturer.
2026-08-16 other
2 quotes from 1 source Some products come with an additional manufacturer's warranty as indicated in the documentation provided with the relevant products. Should you wish to make any claim under a manufacturer's warranty, you can do so directly with the relevant manufacturer. If your purchase was made at a BIG W store, please approach the customer courtesy desk at your local BIG W store to process your product return or exchange. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
DUPLICATE, and correctly stated - our bookkeeping artefact rather than an unbacked idea. A manufacturer's warranty is a separate voluntary promise given by whoever offers it, so a claim under it does lie against the manufacturer; the ACCC confirms it is "provided in addition to the consumer guarantees and does not limit or replace these rights." The corpus already establishes the guarantee-versus-warranty distinction from the ACCC elsewhere. Worth flagging where the line sits, because this is one word away from unlawful: the ACCC's whitegoods media release (2026-04-24) counts as misconduct businesses "telling consumers that they were not entitled to a remedy when products potentially failed to comply with the consumer guarantees, or that consumers had to deal with the manufacturer, which is not the case." BIG W's wording stays on the right side of that. It says "can", not "must", and the surrounding page does not push the consumer away: the same paragraph continues "However, our friendly customer service team can also assist you with any enquiry of this nature.", the page separately sets out major-failure remedies, and the very next section directs in-store purchases to the BIG W courtesy desk. So it is a permissive statement of an extra avenue, not a redirection of the retailer's own statutory liability.
A warranty against defects may be provided by the manufacturer or the business selling the product or service.Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) 2026-06-28 What was searched (4) https://www.bigw.com.au/returns (fetched with a browser UA; quote verified present verbatim along with the surrounding section) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/warranties https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/consumer-rights-and-guarantees https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/rising-contacts-raise-concerns-about-electronics-and-whitegoods-sector-compliance-with-consumer-guarantee-rights # The Good Guys states that a customer's rights under the Australian Consumer Law may extend beyond those time periods.
2026-08-16 other
2 quotes from 1 source sets out the minimum remedies that The Good Guys will provide to you if you buy a faulty product from The Good Guys. Your rights under the ACL may extend beyond these time periods. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
DUPLICATE - a retailer restating its obligations correctly, and the corpus already establishes this from the ACCC. Our bookkeeping artefact, not an unbacked idea. This is the same underlying rule the site's central misconception denies, which makes it useful contrast material: The Good Guys publishes the correct position on its returns page while, per CHOICE's mystery shop, its own floor staff told shoppers the opposite ("Under ACL, you have sort of coverage for an extra 12 months"). The surrounding paragraph is fully compliant and worth quoting alongside: "these policies are in addition to, and do not limit your rights with respect to, the Consumer Guarantees or any other rights and remedies that you have under a law in relation to the goods sold by The Good Guys. Your rights under the ACL may extend beyond these time periods." That gap between the published policy and the spoken advice, not the policy itself, is the finding.
Consumer guarantees under the ACL apply for a reasonable time and in addition to any warranties that manufacturers and/or suppliers provide for a good. This means consumer guarantees may continue to apply during the period of those warranties and after those warranties expire.Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) 2022-11-02 What was searched (4) https://www.thegoodguys.com.au/returns-refunds-and-repairs (fetched with a browser UA; quote verified present verbatim with its surrounding paragraph) https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/acl-consumer-guarantee-guidance-durability.pdf https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/warranties https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/rising-contacts-raise-concerns-about-electronics-and-whitegoods-sector-compliance-with-consumer-guarantee-rights # Salespeople at Harvey Norman stores told CHOICE's mystery shoppers that after the manufacturer's warranty there is nothing the store can do and it is out of their hands.
2023-12-13 other
1 quote from 1 source We called 26 Harvey Norman stores, 18 of which (69%) misrepresented our consumer rights. Some salespeople told us misleading things including, "After the manufacturer's warranty there's nothing we can do, it's out of our hands." The primary source says otherwise checked 2026-08-16
This is the central misconception of the subject and the regulator contradicts it flatly. Two layers to separate. (a) That the salespeople SAID these things is backed by CHOICE, which is primary here - it ran the mystery shop itself (published 2023-12-13, 26 Harvey Norman stores called, 18 of them (69%) misrepresenting consumer rights). I verified all three quoted lines are present verbatim on the CHOICE page. (b) The legal proposition inside those statements is wrong, and the ACCC says so in three independent places. Beyond the durability guidance quoted above: the ACCC's April 2026 media release on the electronics and whitegoods sector says "Businesses may need to provide a remedy under the consumer guarantees even if the warranty has already expired." and "These consumer rights apply separately from any warranty provided by the supplier or manufacturer, and can last for a longer time than the manufacturer’s warranty." (https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/rising-contacts-raise-concerns-about-electronics-and-whitegoods-sector-compliance-with-consumer-guarantee-rights, 2026-04-24) - and it reports the same conduct at scale: "In 2025, the ACCC received over 3,000 reports about businesses who were telling consumers that they were not entitled to a remedy when products potentially failed to comply with the consumer guarantees, or that consumers had to deal with the manufacturer, which is not the case." And it has been penalised: the Federal Court ordered Hewlett-Packard Australia to pay $3 million where its call-centre scripts represented "the warranty period for HP products was limited to a specified express warranty period; consumers were required to pay for remedies outside the express warranty period;" (https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/hp-to-pay-3-million-for-misleading-consumers-and-retailers, 2013-07-05). The HP finding is a near-exact match for the "nine times out of 10 [the system] will say, 'Sorry, but it's at your cost'" line - HP was penalised for scripting that same outcome. Note also the ACCC's general rule at https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/consumer-rights-and-guarantees (2026-07-16): "The basic rights covered by consumer guarantees can’t be taken away by anything a business says or does." A retail POS system's decision has no bearing on a statutory guarantee.
However, any warranty, whether express or manufacturer, will only ever complement the consumer guarantees under the ACL and cannot modify or remove them. This means a reasonable consumer can expect a good to last longer than the supplier or manufacturer’s warranty period, depending on the circumstances.Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) 2022-11-02 What was searched (11) https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=durability%20acceptable%20quality%20guidance https://www.accc.gov.au/about-us/publications/guidance-on-the-consumer-guarantee-as-to-acceptable-quality-and-durability https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/acl-consumer-guarantee-guidance-durability.pdf (downloaded, pdftotext, grepped for 'warrant') https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/warranties https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/consumer-rights-and-guarantees https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=extended%20warranty%20misleading%20penalty https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=hp-pay-3-million https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/hp-to-pay-3-million-for-misleading-consumers-and-retailers https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/rising-contacts-raise-concerns-about-electronics-and-whitegoods-sector-compliance-with-consumer-guarantee-rights https://www.choice.com.au/shopping/consumer-rights-and-advice/your-rights/articles/extended-warranty-mystery-shop (verified all three quoted salesperson statements are present verbatim) # A Good Guys salesperson told CHOICE's mystery shoppers that…
the Australian Consumer Law gives roughly an extra 12 months of coverage. an extended warranty would be needed for a fault at three or four years. 2023-12-13 other
2 quotes from 1 source Just like many JB Hi-Fi staff, many of those at The Good Guys seemed to think the retailer's obligation to consumers ended at the two-year mark. Some of their responses included: "Under ACL, you have sort of coverage for an extra 12 months. Technically. If it's three or four years, that's where you'd need to purchase an extended warranty." The primary source says otherwise checked 2026-08-16
Both halves of the salesperson's sentence are wrong, and each is separately contradicted. On the "extra 12 months" figure: there is no fixed add-on period anywhere in the ACL or ACCC guidance. The ACCC states the opposite - "There are no set rules for deciding whether a product is of acceptable quality, or how long a product should last for." (https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/consumer-rights-and-guarantees, 2026-07-16). The figure is invented; it drifts (this corpus's other retellings put the boundary at two years, not three), which is itself the signature of an unbacked number. On the "you'd need to purchase an extended warranty at three or four years" half: the ACCC's own list of things a business may NOT do to take away consumer guarantee rights includes "suggesting the consumer must sign an extended warranty to avoid losing these basic rights after a certain date" (same page) - i.e. the salesperson's exact move is named as unlawful conduct. The Fisher & Paykel / Domestic & General case quoted above is on all fours: each was penalised $200,000 for letters telling consumers "you have 12 months remaining - after that your appliance won't be protected against repair costs", which the Federal Court held was a false representation. The ACCC's durability guidance also contains a worked example directly rebutting a three-to-four-year cutoff: "It is likely Li Wei could claim the laptop is not of acceptable quality under the ACL because it is not reasonably durable. This is because a reasonable consumer would expect a laptop to last for longer than 18 months, despite the manufacturer’s warranty having expired." and "Whether or not a consumer purchases an extended warranty, they still have the protection of the ACL consumer guarantees."
In fact, under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) consumers may be protected beyond the manufacturer’s warranty period without the purchase of an extended warranty.Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) 2015-01-27 What was searched (7) https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=Fisher%20Paykel%20Domestic%20General%20consumer%20guarantee https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/fisher-paykel-and-domestic-general-to-each-pay-200000-for-false-or-misleading-extended-warranty-representations https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/acl-consumer-guarantee-guidance-durability.pdf (grepped for 'years' and 'warrant' - guidance is example-based, no fixed add-on period anywhere) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/consumer-rights-and-guarantees https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/warranties https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=extended%20warranty%20court%20penalty%20consumer%20guarantees https://www.choice.com.au/shopping/consumer-rights-and-advice/your-rights/articles/extended-warranty-mystery-shop # Salespeople told CHOICE's mystery shoppers that…
whether a remedy would be given after the manufacturer warranty period was decided by an in-store system. nine times out of ten, the in-store system would say the remedy was at the customer's cost after the manufacturer warranty period. 2023-12-13 other
2 quotes from 1 source In many of our calls, we were told our rights to a remedy after the warranty period ended were decided by "the system" at the store. "Nine times out of 10 [the system] will say, 'Sorry, but it's at your cost'." The primary source says otherwise checked 2026-08-16
This is the central misconception of the subject and the regulator contradicts it flatly. Two layers to separate. (a) That the salespeople SAID these things is backed by CHOICE, which is primary here - it ran the mystery shop itself (published 2023-12-13, 26 Harvey Norman stores called, 18 of them (69%) misrepresenting consumer rights). I verified all three quoted lines are present verbatim on the CHOICE page. (b) The legal proposition inside those statements is wrong, and the ACCC says so in three independent places. Beyond the durability guidance quoted above: the ACCC's April 2026 media release on the electronics and whitegoods sector says "Businesses may need to provide a remedy under the consumer guarantees even if the warranty has already expired." and "These consumer rights apply separately from any warranty provided by the supplier or manufacturer, and can last for a longer time than the manufacturer’s warranty." (https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/rising-contacts-raise-concerns-about-electronics-and-whitegoods-sector-compliance-with-consumer-guarantee-rights, 2026-04-24) - and it reports the same conduct at scale: "In 2025, the ACCC received over 3,000 reports about businesses who were telling consumers that they were not entitled to a remedy when products potentially failed to comply with the consumer guarantees, or that consumers had to deal with the manufacturer, which is not the case." And it has been penalised: the Federal Court ordered Hewlett-Packard Australia to pay $3 million where its call-centre scripts represented "the warranty period for HP products was limited to a specified express warranty period; consumers were required to pay for remedies outside the express warranty period;" (https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/hp-to-pay-3-million-for-misleading-consumers-and-retailers, 2013-07-05). The HP finding is a near-exact match for the "nine times out of 10 [the system] will say, 'Sorry, but it's at your cost'" line - HP was penalised for scripting that same outcome. Note also the ACCC's general rule at https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/consumer-rights-and-guarantees (2026-07-16): "The basic rights covered by consumer guarantees can’t be taken away by anything a business says or does." A retail POS system's decision has no bearing on a statutory guarantee.
However, any warranty, whether express or manufacturer, will only ever complement the consumer guarantees under the ACL and cannot modify or remove them. This means a reasonable consumer can expect a good to last longer than the supplier or manufacturer’s warranty period, depending on the circumstances.Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) 2022-11-02 What was searched (11) https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=durability%20acceptable%20quality%20guidance https://www.accc.gov.au/about-us/publications/guidance-on-the-consumer-guarantee-as-to-acceptable-quality-and-durability https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/acl-consumer-guarantee-guidance-durability.pdf (downloaded, pdftotext, grepped for 'warrant') https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/warranties https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/consumer-rights-and-guarantees https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=extended%20warranty%20misleading%20penalty https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=hp-pay-3-million https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/hp-to-pay-3-million-for-misleading-consumers-and-retailers https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/rising-contacts-raise-concerns-about-electronics-and-whitegoods-sector-compliance-with-consumer-guarantee-rights https://www.choice.com.au/shopping/consumer-rights-and-advice/your-rights/articles/extended-warranty-mystery-shop (verified all three quoted salesperson statements are present verbatim) # CHOICE reports that staff were told to say that if a product breaks after two years, past the JB Hi-Fi voluntary warranty period…
it would not be covered. no replacement or refund could be given. 2023-12-13 other
1 quote from 1 source she says, "We were just told to say if your product breaks after two years [the JB Hi-Fi voluntary warranty period], it wouldn't be covered. We wouldn't be able to give you a replacement or a refund." The primary source says otherwise checked 2026-08-16
This is the central misconception of the subject and the regulator contradicts it flatly. Two layers to separate. (a) That the salespeople SAID these things is backed by CHOICE, which is primary here - it ran the mystery shop itself (published 2023-12-13, 26 Harvey Norman stores called, 18 of them (69%) misrepresenting consumer rights). I verified all three quoted lines are present verbatim on the CHOICE page. (b) The legal proposition inside those statements is wrong, and the ACCC says so in three independent places. Beyond the durability guidance quoted above: the ACCC's April 2026 media release on the electronics and whitegoods sector says "Businesses may need to provide a remedy under the consumer guarantees even if the warranty has already expired." and "These consumer rights apply separately from any warranty provided by the supplier or manufacturer, and can last for a longer time than the manufacturer’s warranty." (https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/rising-contacts-raise-concerns-about-electronics-and-whitegoods-sector-compliance-with-consumer-guarantee-rights, 2026-04-24) - and it reports the same conduct at scale: "In 2025, the ACCC received over 3,000 reports about businesses who were telling consumers that they were not entitled to a remedy when products potentially failed to comply with the consumer guarantees, or that consumers had to deal with the manufacturer, which is not the case." And it has been penalised: the Federal Court ordered Hewlett-Packard Australia to pay $3 million where its call-centre scripts represented "the warranty period for HP products was limited to a specified express warranty period; consumers were required to pay for remedies outside the express warranty period;" (https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/hp-to-pay-3-million-for-misleading-consumers-and-retailers, 2013-07-05). The HP finding is a near-exact match for the "nine times out of 10 [the system] will say, 'Sorry, but it's at your cost'" line - HP was penalised for scripting that same outcome. Note also the ACCC's general rule at https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/consumer-rights-and-guarantees (2026-07-16): "The basic rights covered by consumer guarantees can’t be taken away by anything a business says or does." A retail POS system's decision has no bearing on a statutory guarantee.
However, any warranty, whether express or manufacturer, will only ever complement the consumer guarantees under the ACL and cannot modify or remove them. This means a reasonable consumer can expect a good to last longer than the supplier or manufacturer’s warranty period, depending on the circumstances.Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) 2022-11-02 What was searched (11) https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=durability%20acceptable%20quality%20guidance https://www.accc.gov.au/about-us/publications/guidance-on-the-consumer-guarantee-as-to-acceptable-quality-and-durability https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/acl-consumer-guarantee-guidance-durability.pdf (downloaded, pdftotext, grepped for 'warrant') https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/warranties https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/consumer-rights-and-guarantees https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=extended%20warranty%20misleading%20penalty https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=hp-pay-3-million https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/hp-to-pay-3-million-for-misleading-consumers-and-retailers https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/rising-contacts-raise-concerns-about-electronics-and-whitegoods-sector-compliance-with-consumer-guarantee-rights https://www.choice.com.au/shopping/consumer-rights-and-advice/your-rights/articles/extended-warranty-mystery-shop (verified all three quoted salesperson statements are present verbatim) # Sprintlaw states that layby is…
a sales arrangement. an arrangement in which a customer pays for goods in instalments. an arrangement in which a customer takes possession only once the full price is paid. 2025-05-11 other
1 quote from 1 source A lay-by agreement is a sales arrangement where a customer pays for goods in instalments and only takes possession once the full price is paid. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Brief items 4, 5 and 6 are three facets of one Sprintlaw sentence under one id, so one finding. Backed: both limbs match s 96(3). Sprintlaw is notably safer than LegalVision here because it says 'in instalments' without naming a number, so it sidesteps the live ACCC-vs-CAV/s 96(3) disagreement over two versus three instalments recorded in the first finding. Worth noting for completeness that s 96(4) adds 'For the purposes of subsection (3)(b), any deposit paid by the consumer for the goods is taken to be an instalment', which no retelling in this brief mentions. Corpus duplicate.
A lay-by agreement is an agreement between a supplier of goods and a consumer for the supply, in trade or commerce, of the goods on terms (whether express or implied) which provide that: (a) the goods will not be delivered to the consumer until the total price of the goods has been paid; and (b) the price of the goods is to be paid by: (i) 3 or more instalments; or (ii) if the agreement specifies that it is a lay-by agreement—2 or more instalments.Federal Register of Legislation (Competition and Consumer Act 2010, Schedule 2 - Australian Consumer Law, s 96(3)) 2026-07-01 What was searched (4) grep of the ACL (compilation 2026-07-01) for s 96(3) and s 96(4) curl https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/products-and-services/business-practices/lay-bys curl https://www.accc.gov.au/business/selling-products-and-services/payment-methods corpus check: scratchpad/task-006-claims-layby.json entries 1-4 already record the delivery limb and the deposit-counts-as-an-instalment rule # Sprintlaw states that deductions for reasonable costs do not apply in the case of a layby cancelled by the supplier for…
unavailability. business closure. 2025-05-11 other
1 quote from 1 source Deductions for “reasonable costs” do not apply where you are the one cancelling for unavailability or business closure. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Brief items 7 and 8 are one Sprintlaw sentence under one id. The statutory route is s 97(2)(a): a termination charge may only ever be required where the consumer terminates, so where the supplier terminates under s 98(b) (no longer engaged in trade or commerce) or s 98(c) (goods no longer available) no charge is payable, and s 99(1) then requires the supplier to 'refund to the consumer all the amounts paid by the consumer under the agreement other than any termination charge that is payable under the agreement' - which in that case is nothing. CAV says the same in plain words: 'The supplier cannot charge a cancellation fee if: ... it was the store that cancelled the lay-by.' (https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/products-and-services/business-practices/lay-bys, last updated 13 October 2023, verified live). The 'reasonable costs' ceiling Sprintlaw is referring to is s 97(3). Corpus duplicate.
A supplier of goods who is a party to a lay-by agreement must ensure that the agreement does not require the consumer to pay a charge (a termination charge) for the termination of the agreement unless: (a) the agreement is terminated by the consumer; and (b) the supplier has not breached the agreement.Federal Register of Legislation (Competition and Consumer Act 2010, Schedule 2 - Australian Consumer Law, s 97(2)) 2026-07-01 What was searched (4) grep of the ACL (compilation 2026-07-01) for ss 97, 98 and 99 curl https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/products-and-services/business-practices/lay-bys - verified the 'cannot charge a cancellation fee' list live curl https://www.accc.gov.au/business/selling-products-and-services/payment-methods corpus check: scratchpad/task-006-claims-layby.json entries 10-14 already record CAV's cancellation-fee rules # Sprintlaw states that layby sales are…
legal. specifically regulated under the Australian Consumer Law. 2025-05-11 other
1 quote from 1 source Lay-by sales are legal and specifically regulated under the Australian Consumer Law. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Brief items 9 and 10 are one Sprintlaw sentence under one id. Backed structurally: the ACL contains a dedicated Part 3-2 Division 3 headed 'Lay-by agreements' (ss 96-99, quoted above from s 96(1)), mirrored by criminal offence provisions at ss 188-191 in Chapter 4 and by a transitional provision at s 288. A practice that the Act regulates by name, with pecuniary-penalty notes attached to the supplier duties, is by construction both lawful and specifically regulated. The ACCC restates it at https://www.accc.gov.au/business/selling-products-and-services/payment-methods. Corpus duplicate.
A supplier of goods who is a party to a lay-by agreement must ensure that: (a) the agreement is in writing; and (b) a copy of the agreement is given to the consumer to whom the goods are, or are to be, supplied.Federal Register of Legislation (Competition and Consumer Act 2010, Schedule 2 - Australian Consumer Law, s 96(1)) 2026-07-01 What was searched (5) grep of the ACL (compilation 2026-07-01) for Part 3-2 Division 3 'Lay-by agreements' - ss 96-99, plus the mirroring offence provisions ss 188-191 in Chapter 4 grep of the same text for s 288 'Application of amendments relating to lay-by agreements' curl https://www.accc.gov.au/business/selling-products-and-services/payment-methods https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=lay-by corpus check: scratchpad/task-006-claims-layby.json already cites the ACL text directly for lay-by definitions and remedies # LegalVision states that a lay-by agreement exists where a business allows the customer to pay for an item in at least two installments and the customer will not receive the goods until they have paid the full price.
2015-11-30 other
1 quote from 1 source A lay-by agreement exists where your business allows the customer to pay for an item in at least two installments, and the customer won’t receive the goods until they have paid the full price. A source exists, but not for this checked 2026-08-16
Ambiguous because two regulators disagree and I am not resolving it. The statute, ACL s 96(3)(b), sets a two-tier test: 3 or more instalments by default, dropping to 2 or more only if the agreement itself specifies that it is a lay-by agreement. Consumer Affairs Victoria restates exactly that - 'pays for the products in at least three instalments (when the agreement is not stated to be a lay-by agreement) or in two instalments (when the agreement is called a lay-by agreement)' (https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/products-and-services/business-practices/lay-bys, last updated 13 October 2023, verified live). The ACCC states the flat version - 'A lay-by agreement is a type of contract where consumers pay for goods in two or more instalments, and do not receive the goods until the full price has been paid.' (https://www.accc.gov.au/business/selling-products-and-services/payment-methods, verified live, ACCC search lists it as updated 03 Aug 2026). LegalVision's 'at least two installments' is a faithful retelling of the ACCC's version and of s 96(3)(b)(ii), but it silently drops the s 96(3)(b)(i) default that CAV keeps. The second limb of the LegalVision sentence - no delivery until the full price is paid - is backed outright by s 96(3)(a). Corpus duplicate: task-006-claims-layby.json entry 18 already records this exact regulator-vs-regulator split.
A lay-by agreement is an agreement between a supplier of goods and a consumer for the supply, in trade or commerce, of the goods on terms (whether express or implied) which provide that: (a) the goods will not be delivered to the consumer until the total price of the goods has been paid; and (b) the price of the goods is to be paid by: (i) 3 or more instalments; or (ii) if the agreement specifies that it is a lay-by agreement—2 or more instalments.Federal Register of Legislation (Competition and Consumer Act 2010, Schedule 2 - Australian Consumer Law, s 96(3)) 2026-07-01 What was searched (5) curl of the ACL (Competition and Consumer Act 2010 Sch 2, compilation 2026-07-01, legislation.gov.au epub document_4) to a file, then grepped Part 3-2 Division 3 ss 96-99 - note the source uses U+2011 non-breaking hyphens, so a naive grep for 'lay-by' returns zero and looks like the Division is missing curl https://www.accc.gov.au/business/selling-products-and-services/payment-methods (the canonical URL for the ACCC's lay-by guidance) https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=lay-by (751 results; business page dated 03 Aug 2026, consumer page dated 11 Jul 2026, both carry the same two-instalment wording) curl https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/products-and-services/business-practices/lay-bys (last updated 13 October 2023) corpus check: scratchpad/task-006-claims-layby.json entries 0, 3 and 18 already record the CAV, ACL and ACCC positions and entry 18 already records the disagreement # LegalVision states that the termination fee is all that a business can recover from a cancellation of a lay-by agreement.
2015-11-30 other
1 quote from 1 source The termination fee is all that you can recover from a cancellation of the lay-by agreement. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Both LegalVision sentences are the same rule stated twice, so one finding. Backed by the statute and independently by CAV: 'If the consumer's lay-by payments do not cover the cancellation fee, the supplier can recover the outstanding amount as a debt. However, the supplier is not entitled to damages or any other remedy.' (https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/products-and-services/business-practices/lay-bys, last updated 13 October 2023, verified live). One precision the retelling loses: s 99(2) does let the supplier chase an unpaid termination charge as a debt where the instalments already paid do not cover it, so 'all that you can recover' is right about the ceiling but is not a bar on recovering the shortfall. Corpus duplicate - the Act's own wording is already in task-006-claims-layby.json.
If a lay-by agreement is terminated by a party to the agreement, the supplier is not entitled to damages, or to enforce any other remedy, in relation to that termination except as provided for by this section.Federal Register of Legislation (Competition and Consumer Act 2010, Schedule 2 - Australian Consumer Law, s 99(3)) 2026-07-01 What was searched (4) grep of the ACL (compilation 2026-07-01) for Part 3-2 Division 3 s 99 'Effect of termination' curl https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/products-and-services/business-practices/lay-bys - verified the matching CAV sentence live curl https://www.accc.gov.au/business/selling-products-and-services/payment-methods corpus check: scratchpad/task-006-claims-layby.json entries 5 and 6 already carry the s 99(3) and s 99(2) positions from the Act # LegalVision states that a business cannot recover damages or other remedies from terminating a layby agreement.
2015-11-30 other
1 quote from 1 source You cannot recover damages or other remedies from terminating the agreement. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Both LegalVision sentences are the same rule stated twice, so one finding. Backed by the statute and independently by CAV: 'If the consumer's lay-by payments do not cover the cancellation fee, the supplier can recover the outstanding amount as a debt. However, the supplier is not entitled to damages or any other remedy.' (https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/products-and-services/business-practices/lay-bys, last updated 13 October 2023, verified live). One precision the retelling loses: s 99(2) does let the supplier chase an unpaid termination charge as a debt where the instalments already paid do not cover it, so 'all that you can recover' is right about the ceiling but is not a bar on recovering the shortfall. Corpus duplicate - the Act's own wording is already in task-006-claims-layby.json.
If a lay-by agreement is terminated by a party to the agreement, the supplier is not entitled to damages, or to enforce any other remedy, in relation to that termination except as provided for by this section.Federal Register of Legislation (Competition and Consumer Act 2010, Schedule 2 - Australian Consumer Law, s 99(3)) 2026-07-01 What was searched (4) grep of the ACL (compilation 2026-07-01) for Part 3-2 Division 3 s 99 'Effect of termination' curl https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/products-and-services/business-practices/lay-bys - verified the matching CAV sentence live curl https://www.accc.gov.au/business/selling-products-and-services/payment-methods corpus check: scratchpad/task-006-claims-layby.json entries 5 and 6 already carry the s 99(3) and s 99(2) positions from the Act # BIG W states that where a product problem is not major it may choose to give a free repair instead of a replacement or refund.
2026-08-16 other
1 quote from 1 source If the problem is not major, we may choose to give you a free repair instead of a replacement or refund if this is possible. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Duplicate, not an unbacked idea - the corpus already establishes this from the ACL and the ACCC. Statutory backing is ACL s 261: 'If, under section 259(2)(a), a consumer requires a supplier of goods to remedy a failure to comply with a guarantee ... the supplier may comply with the requirement: ... (b) if the failure does not relate to title - by repairing the goods; or (c) by replacing the goods with goods of an identical type; or (d) by refunding ...'. BIG W and Kmart Marketplace are both restating the supplier's s 261 election correctly. The BIG W page also states the corollary correctly immediately after ('If we cannot repair the product within a reasonable time, you can choose a refund or replacement' - ACL s 259(2)(b)). The one live caution: 'repair only' as a standing policy is what the ACCC treats as misleading when it is not qualified by the major/minor distinction; both pages here do qualify it.
When a product or service has a minor problem, the business must fix the problem or repair the product for free. The business does not have to offer a replacement or refund for a minor problem, although it can choose to do this.Australian Competition and Consumer Commission 2026-06-28 What was searched (5) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problems-with-products-and-services-you-buy/repair-replace-refund-cancel (404, dead link on ACCC's own consumer-guarantees page) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel (live, canonical) https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00109/2026-07-01/2026-07-01/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_4/document_4.html - curled to file and grepped ACL ss 259-262 https://www.bigw.com.au/returns (curl 200, quote confirmed verbatim on live page) https://www.kmart.com.au/marketplace-returns-policy/ # BIG W states that it reserves the right to refuse a replacement where the problem arose because the product was misused by the customer.
2026-08-16 other
1 quote from 1 source We reserve the right to refuse to provide a refund, repair or replacement if the problem has, for instance, arisen because the product was misused by the customer. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Duplicate of a rule the corpus already holds from the regulator. The ACCC lists this among the 'Occasions when consumers aren't entitled to a repair, replacement or refund'. Statute: ACL s 54(6) - 'Goods do not fail to be of acceptable quality if: (a) the consumer to whom they are supplied causes them to become of unacceptable quality, or fails to take reasonable steps to prevent them from becoming of unacceptable quality; and (b) they are damaged by abnormal use.' Also ACL s 262(1)(c) bars rejection where 'the goods were damaged after being delivered to the consumer for reasons not related to their state or condition at the time of supply'. BIG W's hedge 'for instance' keeps the clause open-ended, but the ground it names is a real statutory exception, not an invented one.
the problem with the product was caused by the consumer misusing itAustralian Competition and Consumer Commission 2026-06-28 What was searched (3) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel ACL s 54(6) and s 262(1)(c) via the legislation.gov.au consolidated text (curled to file, grepped) https://www.bigw.com.au/returns (curl 200, quote confirmed verbatim) # Bunnings states that its team members will advise the customer whether a refund, exchange, repair or replacement is available.
2026-08-16 other
1 quote from 1 source Our Team Members will be able to advise you whether a refund, exchange, repair or replacement is available A source exists, but not for this checked 2026-08-16
No primary source says the choice of remedy is a matter for store staff to 'advise'. The ACL splits it: for a minor failure the supplier elects (s 261), for a major failure the ACCC says the business 'must give the consumer the choice of a: refund, or replacement of the same type of product'. So the Bunnings sentence is correct for minor failures and understates the position for major ones. It is not a denial of rights in context: two sentences earlier the same page carries the ACL Regulation 90 mandatory text verbatim - 'Our goods come with guarantees that cannot be excluded under the Australian Consumer Law. You're entitled to a replacement or refund for a major failure...' - so the page states the consumer's major-failure choice correctly before this line. Recorded as ambiguous because the assertion maps onto no single rule rather than because sources disagree.
In some situations, the consumer gets to choose the remedy they prefer. A business has the right to assess the product or service before they provide a remedy.Australian Competition and Consumer Commission 2026-06-28 What was searched (3) https://www.bunnings.com.au/policies/returns (curl 200 with a desktop UA - the page is reachable and the quote is verbatim, contrary to the note that Bunnings is bot-blocked) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel ACL ss 259, 261, 263 via the legislation.gov.au consolidated text # Bunnings states that it will…
accept product returns and provide a replacement where the product is faulty or is not of acceptable quality. provide a replacement, refund, or repair where the product is faulty or is not of acceptable quality. 2026-08-16 other
2 quotes from 1 source We will accept product returns and provide you with a replacement, refund or repair where: The product is faulty or is not of acceptable quality; or Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Duplicate - our bookkeeping artefact, not an unbacked idea. This is a plain restatement of ACL s 54 (guarantee as to acceptable quality) read with s 259 and s 261, which the corpus already establishes from the Act. Bunnings' three listed grounds (faulty/not acceptable quality, not fit for intended purpose, does not match sample or description) track ACL ss 54, 55, 56 and 57 respectively.
Consumers are entitled to a solution of a repair, replacement or refund if a product or service they buy doesn’t meet one of the basic rights.Australian Competition and Consumer Commission 2026-06-28 What was searched (3) https://www.bunnings.com.au/policies/returns (curl 200, both quoted fragments confirmed verbatim) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/consumer-rights-and-guarantees ACL ss 54, 259, 261 via the legislation.gov.au consolidated text # Kmart states that for a minor failure with a marketplace product, marketplace sellers may reserve the right to offer repair only instead of replacement.
2026-08-16 other
1 quote from 1 source If the failure is minor, marketplace sellers may reserve their right to offer to repair only. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Duplicate, not an unbacked idea - the corpus already establishes this from the ACL and the ACCC. Statutory backing is ACL s 261: 'If, under section 259(2)(a), a consumer requires a supplier of goods to remedy a failure to comply with a guarantee ... the supplier may comply with the requirement: ... (b) if the failure does not relate to title - by repairing the goods; or (c) by replacing the goods with goods of an identical type; or (d) by refunding ...'. BIG W and Kmart Marketplace are both restating the supplier's s 261 election correctly. The BIG W page also states the corollary correctly immediately after ('If we cannot repair the product within a reasonable time, you can choose a refund or replacement' - ACL s 259(2)(b)). The one live caution: 'repair only' as a standing policy is what the ACCC treats as misleading when it is not qualified by the major/minor distinction; both pages here do qualify it.
When a product or service has a minor problem, the business must fix the problem or repair the product for free. The business does not have to offer a replacement or refund for a minor problem, although it can choose to do this.Australian Competition and Consumer Commission 2026-06-28 What was searched (5) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problems-with-products-and-services-you-buy/repair-replace-refund-cancel (404, dead link on ACCC's own consumer-guarantees page) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel (live, canonical) https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00109/2026-07-01/2026-07-01/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_4/document_4.html - curled to file and grepped ACL ss 259-262 https://www.bigw.com.au/returns (curl 200, quote confirmed verbatim on live page) https://www.kmart.com.au/marketplace-returns-policy/ # Kmart states that replacement of goods may be with refurbished goods. Kmart states that repair of goods using refurbished parts may be an alternative to replacement. 2025-10-01 other
1 quote from 1 source Goods may be replaced by refurbished goods or repaired using refurbished parts. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Strongly backed, and the trace runs the other way from the usual pattern: Kmart is not asserting a policy of its own here, it is discharging a statutory disclosure. ACL s 103(2) makes it an offence for a repairer to 'accept from another person goods that the other person acquired as a consumer' without giving 'a notice that complies with the requirements prescribed for the purposes of subsection (1)', and Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010 reg 91 prescribes the exact wording the ACCC guide reproduces above. Kmart's sentence is that mandated wording compressed. The ACCC's consumer page says the same in plain terms: 'Businesses may also use refurbished products or parts when repairing products. Businesses have to warn consumers about both of these things by giving them a repair notice.' One boundary worth flagging: this covers goods accepted FOR REPAIR. Where the consumer is exercising a major-failure right to reject, ACL s 263(4) requires replacement 'with goods of the same type and of similar value', and the s 261 election is 'by replacing the goods with goods of an identical type' - neither provision authorises substituting refurbished goods for a new-goods replacement. Quote verified verbatim in the PDF (whitespace normalised; the PDF is two-column, so extraction must use pdftotext without -layout). The regulation itself could not be reached on legislation.gov.au - see searched.
The repairer must tell the consumer if the repairer intends to replace defective goods with refurbished goods of the same type rather than repairing the problem with the original goods, or to use refurbished parts to repair the goods. The ACL Regulations prescribe certain wording about refurbished goods. The wording is as follows: Goods presented for repair may be replaced by refurbished goods of the same type rather than being repaired. Refurbished parts may be used to repair the goods.Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (with the state and territory consumer agencies) 2016-04-22 What was searched (5) https://www.kmart.com.au/consumer-guarantee-returns-policy/ (curl 200, quote confirmed verbatim) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Consumer%20guarantees%20-%20A%20guide%20for%20businesses%20and%20legal%20practitioners.pdf (downloaded, pdftotext, grepped) ACL s 103 via the legislation.gov.au consolidated text (grepped 'repairer') https://www.legislation.gov.au/F2010L02386/latest/text - wrong instrument (returns Poisons Standard 2010); could not reach Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010 reg 91 as standalone text on legislation.gov.au, and the register's search/API endpoints are an Angular SPA that curl cannot drive # Regarding replacement, Kmart states that it reserves the right to assess the condition and age of returned goods before providing a repair, exchange or refund.
2025-10-01 other
1 quote from 1 source Kmart reserves the right to assess the condition and age of returned goods prior to providing a repair, exchange or refund. Not yet checked
Nobody has gone looking for a source for this one yet, so it says nothing either way.
# Sprintlaw asserts, regarding services guarantees, that the customer…
can cancel and get a refund for the unused portion of a services contract. may claim compensation for loss or damage. 2025-01-22 other
1 quote from 1 source with services, the customer can cancel and get a refund for the unused portion (and may claim compensation for loss or damage). Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Backed at the strongest possible level: the quoted wording is not the ACCC paraphrasing the law, it is the mandatory text the law itself prescribes for warranties against defects covering services supplied after 9 June 2019, so Sprintlaw's sentence is a compression of the statutory script. Statute: ACL s 267(3)(a) lets the consumer 'terminate the contract for the supply of the services', and s 267(4) lets the consumer 'recover damages for any loss or damage suffered by the consumer because of the failure to comply with the guarantee if it was reasonably foreseeable'. One bookkeeping point: the quote extracted into the brief drops Sprintlaw's own qualifier. The live article reads 'For a major problem with services, the customer can cancel and get a refund for the unused portion' - the major/minor limit is present on the page, and only the excerpt lost it. Also worth carrying forward: the refund is for the unused portion, not the whole price - the ACCC elsewhere says 'This may not be a full refund, as the consumer needs to pay a reasonable amount for any work done so far and as expected.'
Our services come with guarantees that cannot be excluded under the Australian Consumer Law. For major failures with the service, you are entitled: to cancel your service contract with us; and to a refund for the unused portion, or to compensation for its reduced value You are also entitled to be compensated for any other reasonably foreseeable loss or damage.Australian Competition and Consumer Commission 2026-06-28 What was searched (4) https://sprintlaw.com.au/articles/free-repair-if-faulty/ (curl 200, quote confirmed verbatim under 'Services: When Refunds Are Required') https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/warranties (mandatory text for the supply of services after 9 June 2019) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel ACL s 267(3) and s 267(4) via the legislation.gov.au consolidated text # Sprintlaw asserts about services guarantees that…
it is unlawful to display or enforce a blanket 'No Refunds' policy. nothing can limit or exclude Australian Consumer Law rights for faulty goods or services. 2025-01-22 other
1 quote from 1 source It's unlawful to display or enforce a blanket "No Refunds" policy. You can set reasonable conditions for change-of-mind returns, but nothing can limit or exclude ACL rights for faulty goods or services. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Duplicate - the corpus already establishes this from the ACCC and the Act, and it overlaps trace-018 (no refunds sign) and trace-017 (sale items) directly. Statutory backing for the second limb is ACL s 64(1): 'A term of a contract ... is void to the extent that the term purports to exclude, restrict or modify, or has the effect of excluding, restricting or modifying: (a) the application of all or any of the provisions of this Division; or (b) the exercise of a right conferred by such a provision; or (c) any liability of a person for a failure to comply with a guarantee'. Sprintlaw's second sentence - 'You can set reasonable conditions for change-of-mind returns, but nothing can limit or exclude ACL rights for faulty goods or services' - draws the line in the right place and matches Consumer Affairs Victoria's narrower formulation as well as the ACCC's flat one, so it does not fall into the ACCC-vs-CAV split the corpus records on sale items.
Businesses can’t take away a consumer's right to a refund or replacement for faulty products or services. It’s illegal for businesses to rely on store policies or terms and conditions which deny these rights. For example, policies which say ‘no refunds’ or ‘no refunds or exchanges on sale items’.Australian Competition and Consumer Commission 2026-06-28 What was searched (4) https://sprintlaw.com.au/articles/free-repair-if-faulty/ (curl 200, quote confirmed verbatim under 'No "No Refunds" Policies') https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/consumer-rights-and-guarantees ACL s 64 via the legislation.gov.au consolidated text # LegalVision asserts that consumer guarantees are warranties that all consumers can rely on when making a purchase.
2021-11-09 other
1 quote from 1 source Consumer guarantees are warranties that all consumers can rely on when making a purchase. The primary source says otherwise checked 2026-08-16
The substance LegalVision is reaching for is right - the guarantees are automatic and every consumer gets them - but the sentence as published collapses exactly the distinction the regulator maintains, and it is the conflation the ACCC spends a whole page correcting. The ACCC's warranties page reinforces it: 'A warranty is a voluntary promise that a person or business makes when selling a product or service' and 'Warranties can't replace, change or take away a consumer's basic rights.' Under the ACL a warranty is a separate creature - s 59 creates a guarantee THAT express warranties will be complied with, and 'warranty against defects' is separately defined at s 102(3) - so guarantees and warranties are not synonyms in the Act either. Contradicted on the terminology, not on the underlying entitlement. Worth noting that this is the same conflation that makes extended-warranty mis-selling possible (see the Fisher & Paykel / Domestic & General case in trace-005).
Consumer guarantees are not the same as warranties, including extended warranties. Consumer guarantees are automatic and can’t be taken away. Warranties are extra promises that a business can choose to make on top of the consumer guarantees.Australian Competition and Consumer Commission 2026-07-16 What was searched (4) https://legalvision.com.au/how-do-the-consumer-guarantees-apply-to-services/ (curl 200, quote confirmed verbatim in the 'What Are Consumer Guarantees?' section) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/consumer-rights-and-guarantees https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/warranties ACL Part 3-2 Division 1 headings via the legislation.gov.au consolidated text (ss 51-63 are captioned 'Guarantee as to ...', and s 59 separates 'express warranties' as a distinct thing a guarantee attaches to) # LegalVision asserts that, for services guarantees, where a service fault is minor, the service supplier is the party that chooses which remedy to provide.
2021-11-09 other
1 quote from 1 source If a fault is considered a 'minor' fault, the service supplier can choose to either: Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Duplicate of a rule the corpus already holds from the ACL and the ACCC. Statutory backing is ACL s 267(2): 'If the failure to comply with the guarantee can be remedied and is not a major failure: (a) the consumer may require the supplier to remedy the failure within a reasonable time'. The Act imposes the obligation to remedy without prescribing which remedy, which is what makes the choice the supplier's; the ACCC states the consequence in terms. LegalVision's surrounding text also gets the failure mode right ('If a supplier refuses to fix the problem or does not fix it in a reasonable timeframe, the consumer has the right to employ someone else') - that is ACL s 267(2)(b).
When a product or service has a minor problem, the business must fix the problem or repair the product for free. The business does not have to offer a replacement or refund for a minor problem, although it can choose to do this.Australian Competition and Consumer Commission 2026-06-28 What was searched (3) https://legalvision.com.au/how-do-the-consumer-guarantees-apply-to-services/ (curl 200; the truncated brief quote continues 'fix the problem (free of charge and within a reasonable time); or offer a refund') https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel ACL s 267(2) via the legislation.gov.au consolidated text # In services guarantees, LegalVision asserts that a supplier…
need not provide any refund because a purchaser changed their mind about the service. must honour a company policy if it has one for instances where a purchaser changed their mind about the service. 2021-11-09 other
1 quote from 1 source Further, a supplier need not provide any refund because a purchaser changed their mind about the service. However, if they have a company policy in such instances, they must honour it. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Duplicate - the corpus already establishes both limbs from the ACCC, and the regulator's sentence carries them in the same order LegalVision does. This is the distinction TRACE-NOTES flags as deciding several claims in this sweep: change of mind is not a guarantee failure at all, so no statutory remedy arises; but once a business advertises a change-of-mind policy that policy is a representation, and failing to honour it is misleading conduct under ACL s 18 / s 29(1)(m). Both agencies say the same thing, so there is no regulator-vs-regulator split here.
they got what they asked for but simply changed their mind, found the product cheaper somewhere else, or decided they didn't like the purchase or had no use for it. However, if a business has a ‘change of mind’ policy, they must follow it.Australian Competition and Consumer Commission 2026-06-28 What was searched (3) https://legalvision.com.au/how-do-the-consumer-guarantees-apply-to-services/ (curl 200, quote confirmed verbatim in the 'No Remedy' section) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel ACL ss 259, 267 (change of mind is not a failure to comply with any guarantee, so it triggers no remedy under either section) # LegalVision asserts that under the Australian Consumer Law services include ballet lessons, an accountant's services, dry cleaning and installing or repairing consumer goods.
2021-11-09 other
1 quote from 1 source For example: ballet lessons, accountant's services, dry cleaning and installing or repairing consumer goods are all services under the ACL. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Backed, and the citation chain is visible: LegalVision has lifted the ACCC guide's glossary definition almost word for word - its bulleted 'duties; work; facilities; rights; or benefits provided in the course of business' is the ACCC's phrase - and then swapped two of the four worked examples (swimming lessons became ballet lessons, lawyers' services became accountant's services). Both substitutions still land inside the statutory definition, so the claim is true rather than drifted: ACL s 2 defines 'services' to include rights, benefits, privileges or facilities conferred under '(i) a contract for or in relation to the performance of work (including work of a professional nature)' - an accountant - and '(ii) a contract for or in relation to the provision of, or the use or enjoyment of facilities for, amusement, entertainment, recreation or instruction' - ballet lessons. Dry cleaning and installing or repairing consumer goods are the ACCC's own examples, unchanged. Recording the substitution because it is the kind of drift the brief asks to be watched for; here it happens not to change the answer.
services include duties, work, facilities, rights or benefits provided in the course of business, for example: • dry cleaning • installing or repairing consumer goods • providing swimming lessons • lawyers’ services.Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (with the state and territory consumer agencies) 2016-04-22 What was searched (4) https://legalvision.com.au/how-do-the-consumer-guarantees-apply-to-services/ (curl 200, quote confirmed verbatim) https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Consumer%20guarantees%20-%20A%20guide%20for%20businesses%20and%20legal%20practitioners.pdf (downloaded, pdftotext, glossary at the back) ACL s 2 definition of 'services' via the legislation.gov.au consolidated text (grepped 'privileges or facilities') https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/consumer-rights-and-guarantees # Bunnings states that customers are entitled to compensation for other reasonably foreseeable loss or damage.
2026-08-16 other
1 quote from 1 source You're entitled to a replacement or refund for a major failure, and to compensation for other reasonably foreseeable loss or damage. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Backed as strongly as it can be, and a duplicate of material already in this corpus. Kmart is not paraphrasing the law here - it is reproducing, word for word, the text the law compels it to publish. Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010 reg 90(1)(c)(i) requires a warranty against defects for a supply of goods to include the reg 90(2) text, and the ACCC puts it as 'The law specifies the text that a business must exactly include.' The substantive entitlements sit in the ACL itself: s 259(3)(a) (reject the goods on a major failure) and s 259(4) ('The consumer may, by action against the supplier, recover damages for any loss or damage suffered by the consumer because of the failure to comply with the guarantee if it was reasonably foreseeable that the consumer would suffer such loss or damage as a result of such a failure.'), with s 259(6) confirming that damages run in addition to the repair/replace/refund remedies. One observation not worth a status change: Bunnings' rendering ('You're entitled to a replacement or refund for a major failure, and to compensation for other reasonably foreseeable loss or damage') is not the prescribed text - it contracts 'You are' and drops 'any'. Substantively identical, but reg 90 prescribes exact wording, so the departure is real if that page is functioning as a warranty against defects.
(2) For the purposes of subparagraph (1)(c)(i), the text is ‘Our goods come with guarantees that cannot be excluded under the Australian Consumer Law. You are entitled to a replacement or refund for a major failure and compensation for any other reasonably foreseeable loss or damage. You are also entitled to have the goods repaired or replaced if the goods fail to be of acceptable quality and the failure does not amount to a major failure’.Federal Register of Legislation (Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010, reg 90(2)) 2026-08-11 What was searched (5) corpus grep: 'reasonably foreseeable loss or damage' across all captures in scratchpad/raw (20 hits, incl. ACCC, Kmart, Bunnings) https://api.prod.legislation.gov.au/v1/titles?$filter=startswith(name,'Competition and Consumer Regulations') - to resolve the register id (F1996B01420) https://www.legislation.gov.au/F1996B01420/2026-08-11/2026-08-11/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_1/document_1.html (fetched live, 937 KB; reg 90 read in full and quote verified verbatim) https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00109/2026-07-01/2026-07-01/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_4/document_4.html (ACL ss 259, 260 read in full) https://www.accc.gov.au/business/selling-products-and-services/warranties (corpus capture raw/task-007-www.accc.gov.au_business_selling-products-and-services_warranties.txt) # Sprintlaw states that consequential loss exclusions are used by businesses to cap open-ended exposure that could be wildly disproportionate to the contract value.
2026-02-18 other
1 quote from 1 source Businesses use them to cap “open-ended” exposure that could be wildly disproportionate to the contract value. Searched, nothing found checked 2026-08-16
No primary source, and probably none exists, because this is an assertion about commercial motive rather than a proposition of law - the sort of thing a legal-marketing article states as background and nobody cites. Nothing in the ACL, the Competition and Consumer Regulations, or the ACCC's material speaks to why parties adopt these clauses. The closest judicial statement is Lord Diplock in Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Ltd, adopted by Nettle JA in Peerless at [91]: 'In commercial contracts negotiated between business-men capable of looking after their own interests and of deciding how risk inherent in the performance of various kinds of contract can be most economically borne (generally by insurance)...' - that is about efficient allocation of risk, not about disproportion between exposure and contract value, so it is adjacent rather than on point. The Peerless facts happen to illustrate the disproportion (a $675,000 contract against claims well beyond it, with liquidated damages separately capped at 'a maximum aggregate of 10% of the contract value'), but an illustration is not a source for the general motive claim. Not flagged as a suspect statistic - there is no figure here that drifts, just an unsourced but plausible commercial generalisation.
What was searched (6) https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2008/26.html - Environmental Systems v Peerless [2008] VSCA 26, searched the whole judgment for any statement of why parties adopt such clauses https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/wa/WASC/2013/356.html - Regional Power [2013] WASC 356, same search across [50]-[118] https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00109/2026-07-01/2026-07-01/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_4/document_4.html - searched the ACL for any provision or note on the purpose of limitation clauses; s 64A(4) lists fairness factors but gives no rationale of this kind corpus grep: 'consequential' / 'disproportionate' / 'exposure' across all ACCC, CAV and ACL captures in scratchpad/raw https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=consequential%20loss (the regulator does not address exclusion-clause drafting rationale) curl and WebFetch blocked by Cloudflare on austlii; reached via Playwright # Sprintlaw states that categories like lost profits…
are not automatically consequential in every case. may sometimes be treated as a direct loss. 2026-02-18 other
1 quote from 1 source categories like “lost profits” aren’t automatically consequential in every case - sometimes lost profits may be treated as a direct loss, depending on the nature of the contract and what the profit relates to Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Backed by primary authority - the judgments themselves, not a law-firm summary. Sprintlaw's two sentences track a real and live split in Australian law. Nettle JA in Environmental Systems v Peerless [2008] VSCA 26 at [93] said 'ordinary reasonable business persons would naturally conceive of ‘consequential loss’ in contract as everything beyond the normal measure of damages, such as profits lost or expenses incurred through breach', which reads as putting lost profits on the consequential side by default. Kenneth Martin J in Regional Power expressly declined to treat that as a general rule (the quote above at [92]), and on the facts held at [117] 'a provision of replacement power by SECWA, and its associated outlays in that exercise, constituted for it a direct economic loss at the time', so the exclusion clause did not bite. Both judgments rest on the High Court's rule in Darlington Futures Ltd v Delco Australia Pty Ltd, quoted in Peerless at [92]: 'the interpretation of an exclusion clause is to be determined by construing the clause according to its natural and ordinary meaning, read in the light of the contract as a whole, thereby giving due weight to the context in which the clause appears including the nature and object of the contract'. That is exactly Sprintlaw's 'depending on the nature of the contract and what the profit relates to'. Regional Power at [95] also adopts Professor J W Carter's view that both rigid approaches are wrong because they 'approach the expression ‘consequential loss’ from particular legal perspectives rather than a commercial perspective which will vary from case to case'.
Moreover, the observations at [93] do not explicitly identify what is a 'normal measure of damages'. Nor would they explain why, as the sentence at the end of [93] seems to suggest, 'profits lost or expenses incurred through breach' must invariably fall outside the scope of a 'normal measure of damages'.Supreme Court of Western Australia (Kenneth Martin J), Regional Power Corporation v Pacific Hydro Group Two Pty Ltd [No 2] [2013] WASC 356 2013-09-26 What was searched (4) https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2008/26.html - Environmental Systems Pty Ltd v Peerless Holdings Pty Ltd [2008] VSCA 26, read in full at [85]-[94] https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/wa/WASC/2013/356.html - Regional Power Corporation v Pacific Hydro Group Two Pty Ltd [No 2] [2013] WASC 356, read at [50]-[118] curl and WebFetch both returned Cloudflare 403 for austlii.edu.au and classic.austlii.edu.au; reached only through a real browser (Playwright), after the JS challenge cleared https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/ (403), https://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/search?query=Environmental+Systems+Peerless (200 but no 2008 judgment text) # Consequential loss is the subject of a statement by Sprintlaw. Sprintlaw's statement about consequential loss says that a business dealing with consumers cannot contract out of certain obligations under the Australian Consumer Law. 2026-02-18 other
1 quote from 1 source Also remember that if you’re dealing with consumers, you can’t contract out of certain obligations under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Backed by the statute, and a duplicate - the no-contracting-out rule is already established from primary sources elsewhere in this corpus. Two provisions do the work: s 64 voids terms excluding the consumer guarantees in Part 3-2 Div 1, and s 276 does the same for the remedies in Part 5-4. Sprintlaw's qualifier 'certain obligations' is the right one, because s 64A carves out a real exception that matters directly to consequential-loss drafting: for goods or services NOT 'of a kind ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use or consumption', a term limiting liability to replacement, repair or the cost of either is not void under s 64 - unless (s 64A(3)) the buyer establishes that reliance on the term is not fair or reasonable. So in a business-to-business supply an exclusion can validly cut off consequential loss; in a consumer supply it cannot.
A term of a contract (including a term that is not set out in the contract but is incorporated in the contract by another term of the contract) is void to the extent that the term purports to exclude, restrict or modify, or has the effect of excluding, restricting or modifying: (a) the application of all or any of the provisions of this Division; or (b) the exercise of a right conferred by such a provision; or (c) any liability of a person for a failure to comply with a guarantee that applies under this Division to a supply of goods or services.Federal Register of Legislation (Competition and Consumer Act 2010, Schedule 2 - Australian Consumer Law, s 64) 2026-07-01 What was searched (2) https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00109/2026-07-01/2026-07-01/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_4/document_4.html (fetched live, 4.25 MB; ss 64, 64A and 276 located in the operative text, not the table of contents, and read in full) corpus grep: 'cannot be excluded' / 'not to be excluded' across ACL and ACCC captures # Sprintlaw states that a broad 'no consequential loss' clause might leave a customer buying goods or services without a meaningful remedy for the real-world damage they suffer when the supplier fails.
2026-02-18 other
1 quote from 1 source if you’re the customer buying goods or services, a broad “no consequential loss” clause might leave you without a meaningful remedy for the real-world damage you suffer when the supplier fails. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Sprintlaw's claim is hedged ('might leave you without a meaningful remedy'), so it needs only a demonstrated possibility, and Peerless is that demonstration from a primary source. The supplier's clause 8.9 said no more than 'As a matter of policy, Environmental Systems does not accept liquidated damages or consequential loss', and the Court of Appeal read it at its natural meaning and used it to strip the customer of $375,951 of costs it had actually incurred trying to make the purchased equipment work. Peerless recovered in the end only because it had a separate misleading-conduct claim under the Trade Practices Act, which is precisely Sprintlaw's point about the contractual remedy being hollowed out. Two limits belong on the finding. First, it is not universal: on materially similar wording Regional Power [2013] WASC 356 characterised the customer's outlays as direct loss and let them through, so outcome turns on the contract. Second, it does not hold for consumer supplies - ACL s 64 voids such a term to the extent it excludes liability for a failure to comply with a guarantee, and s 64A permits a limitation only for goods or services not ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use. Sprintlaw makes that qualification itself on the same page.
I conclude that the respondent’s claims for $223,560 for the cost of labour incurred in attempting to make the RTO operate, and $152,391.06 for the extra costs of gas, were excluded by clause 8.9.Supreme Court of Victoria - Court of Appeal (Nettle JA), Environmental Systems Pty Ltd v Peerless Holdings Pty Ltd [2008] VSCA 26 2008-02-26 What was searched (4) https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2008/26.html - Environmental Systems v Peerless [2008] VSCA 26 at [5], [77]-[94] (clause 8.9 and the amounts excluded) https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/wa/WASC/2013/356.html - Regional Power [2013] WASC 356 (contrasting outcome) https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00109/2026-07-01/2026-07-01/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_4/document_4.html - ACL ss 64, 64A, 276 for the consumer-side limit austlii reachable only via Playwright; curl/WebFetch blocked by Cloudflare 403 # Kmart states that customers are entitled to a replacement or refund for a major failure and compensation for any other reasonably foreseeable loss or damage.
2025-10-01 other
1 quote from 1 source You are entitled to a replacement or refund for a major failure and compensation for any other reasonably foreseeable loss or damage. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Backed as strongly as it can be, and a duplicate of material already in this corpus. Kmart is not paraphrasing the law here - it is reproducing, word for word, the text the law compels it to publish. Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010 reg 90(1)(c)(i) requires a warranty against defects for a supply of goods to include the reg 90(2) text, and the ACCC puts it as 'The law specifies the text that a business must exactly include.' The substantive entitlements sit in the ACL itself: s 259(3)(a) (reject the goods on a major failure) and s 259(4) ('The consumer may, by action against the supplier, recover damages for any loss or damage suffered by the consumer because of the failure to comply with the guarantee if it was reasonably foreseeable that the consumer would suffer such loss or damage as a result of such a failure.'), with s 259(6) confirming that damages run in addition to the repair/replace/refund remedies. One observation not worth a status change: Bunnings' rendering ('You're entitled to a replacement or refund for a major failure, and to compensation for other reasonably foreseeable loss or damage') is not the prescribed text - it contracts 'You are' and drops 'any'. Substantively identical, but reg 90 prescribes exact wording, so the departure is real if that page is functioning as a warranty against defects.
(2) For the purposes of subparagraph (1)(c)(i), the text is ‘Our goods come with guarantees that cannot be excluded under the Australian Consumer Law. You are entitled to a replacement or refund for a major failure and compensation for any other reasonably foreseeable loss or damage. You are also entitled to have the goods repaired or replaced if the goods fail to be of acceptable quality and the failure does not amount to a major failure’.Federal Register of Legislation (Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010, reg 90(2)) 2026-08-11 What was searched (5) corpus grep: 'reasonably foreseeable loss or damage' across all captures in scratchpad/raw (20 hits, incl. ACCC, Kmart, Bunnings) https://api.prod.legislation.gov.au/v1/titles?$filter=startswith(name,'Competition and Consumer Regulations') - to resolve the register id (F1996B01420) https://www.legislation.gov.au/F1996B01420/2026-08-11/2026-08-11/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_1/document_1.html (fetched live, 937 KB; reg 90 read in full and quote verified verbatim) https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00109/2026-07-01/2026-07-01/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_4/document_4.html (ACL ss 259, 260 read in full) https://www.accc.gov.au/business/selling-products-and-services/warranties (corpus capture raw/task-007-www.accc.gov.au_business_selling-products-and-services_warranties.txt) # The Good Guys states that…
a faulty product valued at $500 or less will be replaced. the replacement of a faulty product valued at $500 or less is so the customer does not have to wait for it to be repaired. 2026-08-16 other
1 quote from 1 source A faulty product valued at $500 or less will be replaced so you don’t have to wait for it to be repaired. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
This is a term of a commercial product, so the operator's own live page is the primary source and the quote is verified there. Tested against the extended-warranty mis-selling seam and it survives: under ACL s 261 the supplier - not the consumer - elects between repair, replacement and refund for a minor failure, so a contractual promise to always replace rather than repair a sub-$500 item genuinely sits above the statutory floor. That is what the ACCC asks for: 'Businesses should explain what an extended warranty provides over and above the consumer's automatic rights' (https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/warranties, 2026-06-28). Not contradicted.
A faulty product valued at $500 or less will be replaced so you don’t have to wait for it to be repaired. Simply call the Member Support Team to arrange for an assessment to verify the fault. Once confirmed, a replacement product will be organised for you.The Good Guys 2026-08-17 What was searched (4) https://www.thegoodguys.com.au/gold-service-extras (curl 200 with a desktop UA, 1.06MB; quote confirmed verbatim under 'Simple replacement of products $500 or less') https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/warranties https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Consumer%20guarantees%20-%20A%20guide%20for%20businesses%20and%20legal%20practitioners.pdf ACL s 261 via the legislation.gov.au consolidated text # The Good Guys states that a product repair taking longer than 20 business days from when it inspects or receives the product makes the customer eligible to have it replaced with an equivalent product.
2026-08-16 other
1 quote from 1 source If your product repair takes longer than 20 business days from when we inspect or receive it, you’ll be eligible to have it replaced with an equivalent product. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Verified verbatim on the operator's own page, which is primary for its own contract terms. Flagging the overlap rather than calling it a contradiction: the ACL already gives this right without payment, just without a number attached. ACL s 259(2)(b) lets a consumer who has required a remedy and been met with a supplier who 'fails to comply with the requirement within a reasonable time' either have it fixed elsewhere at the supplier's cost or reject the goods, and the ACCC says 'What is a reasonable amount of time for a business to fix a problem will depend on the nature of the product or service.' For many products a reasonable time is well under 20 business days, so for those the paid benefit is slower than the free statutory right; for a large installed appliance it may be faster. The reason this is not scored contradicted is that the same page carries the ACL disclosure in full (see 2efaf935cbd5) rather than presenting the 20-day promise as the only protection available.
If your product repair takes longer than 20 business days from when we inspect or receive it, you’ll be eligible to have it replaced with an equivalent product. If you’d prefer to continue with a repair, you may request $100 90 Day StoreCashThe Good Guys 2026-08-17 What was searched (4) https://www.thegoodguys.com.au/gold-service-extras (curl 200, quote confirmed verbatim under 'Repair period guaranteed') https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/warranties ACL s 259(2)(b) via the legislation.gov.au consolidated text # The Good Guys states that an enrolled product requiring more than two repairs during the life of the plan will be offered an equivalent replacement at the customer's request.
2026-08-16 other
1 quote from 1 source If your enrolled product requires more than two repairs during the life of your plan, we will offer you an equivalent replacement at your request. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Verified verbatim on the operator's page. This is the plan feature that overlaps the statute most closely, and in one respect offers less. ACL s 260(2) makes a failure a MAJOR failure where 'the failure is one of 2 or more failures to comply with a guarantee ... and the goods would not have been acquired by a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the nature and extent of those failures, taken as a whole' - and s 260(3) adds that this 'applies regardless of whether the consumer has taken action under section 259 in relation to any of the failures'. Once the failure is major, ACL s 259(3) and the ACCC give the consumer the choice of refund OR replacement, not replacement alone: 'it must give the consumer the choice of a: refund, or replacement of the same type of product.' So a repeatedly-repaired product may already carry a free right to a refund that this paid benefit does not mention. Recorded as backed because the assertion about what the page says is true and the page does not deny the statutory right elsewhere; the narrower remedy set is the thing worth surfacing.
If your enrolled product requires more than two repairs during the life of your plan, we will offer you an equivalent replacement at your request.The Good Guys 2026-08-17 What was searched (3) https://www.thegoodguys.com.au/gold-service-extras (curl 200, quote confirmed verbatim under 'No Lemon Guarantee') ACL s 260(2) and s 259(3) via the legislation.gov.au consolidated text https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel # The Good Guys states that a customer who does not purchase Gold Service Extras may still have rights under the Australian Consumer Law to a free remedy after the manufacturer's warranty and its own minimum voluntary warranty expire.
2026-08-16 other
1 quote from 1 source Even if you do not purchase Gold Service Extras, you may also have rights under the Australian Consumer Law to a free remedy (even after expiry of the manufacturer’s warranty and The Good Guys’ Minimum Voluntary Warranty). Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Backed by the regulator, and this is the finding that decides how the rest of this brief is scored. The launching brief expected The Good Guys' extended-warranty page to reproduce the Fisher & Paykel / Domestic & General misrepresentation. It does not - it carries the opposite disclosure, in the retailer's own words: 'Even if you do not purchase Gold Service Extras, you may also have rights under the Australian Consumer Law to a free remedy (even after expiry of the manufacturer's warranty and The Good Guys' Minimum Voluntary Warranty).' That is close to the wording the ACCC guide asks for ('suppliers and manufacturers should explain to the consumer what an extended warranty would provide, over and above the consumer's rights under the consumer guarantees') and it is the direct negation of the F&P/D&G line that the appliance 'won't be protected against repair costs' after the warranty ends. The corpus should record The Good Guys as compliant on this point rather than as an instance of the seam. The ACCC's durability guidance (2 Nov 2022) is the further backing that a reasonable consumer can expect a good to outlast the manufacturer's warranty.
Warranties against defects usually apply for a set amount of time. After the warranty expires, the consumer guarantee of acceptable quality usually still applies. This means that if there’s a problem with a product, the consumer likely still has a right to a repair, refund or replacement, even after the warranty period. Businesses must not mislead consumers into thinking that their rights are limited to the remedies or timeframe set out in a warranty against defects.Australian Competition and Consumer Commission 2026-06-28 What was searched (4) https://www.thegoodguys.com.au/gold-service-extras (curl 200, quote confirmed verbatim in the 'Product Care' block above the feature list) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/warranties https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Consumer%20guarantees%20-%20A%20guide%20for%20businesses%20and%20legal%20practitioners.pdf https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/consumer-rights-and-guarantees # The Good Guys states that Gold Service Extras must be purchased at the same time as the product it covers.
2026-08-16 other
1 quote from 1 source Gold Service Extras must be purchased at the same time as you purchase your product. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
A pure commercial eligibility term, verified verbatim on the operator's own page. No primary source speaks to it either way: the ACL and the ACCC regulate what an extended warranty may be represented to do and how it may be sold, not when it may be sold. The ACCC only observes the practice - 'Usually, consumers are offered the chance to buy an extended warranty after, or at the time, they buy the goods' - and constrains the manner: suppliers 'must not use undue pressure or unfair tactics to get a consumer to buy an extended warranty'. The relevance of a point-of-sale-only rule to that constraint is worth noting, since it concentrates the sale into the checkout moment CHOICE's 2022 mystery shop found salespeople using, but nothing in the Act makes the timing itself unlawful.
Gold Service Extras can be purchased with any eligible product from The Good Guys in store or online. Gold Service Extras must be purchased at the same time as you purchase your product.The Good Guys 2026-08-17 What was searched (4) https://www.thegoodguys.com.au/gold-service-extras (curl 200, quote confirmed verbatim under 'How to Join') https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/warranties (searched for any rule on when an extended warranty may be sold - the ACCC regulates pressure and misleading conduct, not timing) https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Consumer%20guarantees%20-%20A%20guide%20for%20businesses%20and%20legal%20practitioners.pdf (extended warranties section, p32) ACL Part 3-2 Division 1 and s 102 via the legislation.gov.au consolidated text # The ACCC reproduces a statement from letters sent to consumers who had purchased a Fisher & Paykel appliance, inviting those consumers to buy an extended warranty. The statement that invited consumers who had purchased a Fisher & Paykel appliance to buy an extended warranty told those consumers that the appliance would not be protected against repair costs after the 12 months remaining. 2016-03-01 medium confidence other
2 quotes from 1 source Both companies sent letters to consumers who had purchased a Fisher & Paykel appliance inviting them to purchase an extended warranty. The letters contained statements such as a year old, which means that you have 12 months remaining—after that your appliance won’t be protected against repair costs. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Both claims here are quoting the ACCC's own case study, so the cited source IS the primary source and the text is present verbatim. What matters is the sentence the brief's excerpt stops short of, because it is the contradiction the whole extended-warranty seam rests on. The same case study continues: 'The Court held that the letters contained a false or misleading representation to consumers that they would not be protected against repair costs for their appliance after a period of two years from the date of purchase (being the period of the manufacturer's warranty), unless they purchased the extended warranty. In fact, under the ACL consumers may be protected beyond the manufacturer's warranty period without the purchase of an extended warranty.' Legal reference given by the ACCC: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Fisher & Paykel Customer Services Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1393. The guide states the rule directly a column earlier - 'Some suppliers or manufacturers also tell the consumer an extended warranty provides extra protection, which the consumer would not have unless they buy it. This is not necessarily true' - and lists among the prohibitions that suppliers must not 'mislead a consumer into paying for rights that they already have under the consumer guarantees.' The ACCC's current live page carries the same rule: 'suggesting the consumer must sign an extended warranty to avoid losing these basic rights after a certain date' is listed as an unlawful way of taking away consumer guarantee rights (https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/consumer-rights-and-guarantees, 2026-07-16).
In 2015, the Federal Court declared, by consent, that both Fisher & Paykel Customer Services Pty Ltd and Domestic & General Services Ltd made false or misleading representation in the course of offering an extended warranty to consumers, and imposed a civil penalty of $200,000 on each business. Both companies sent letters to consumers who had purchased a Fisher & Paykel appliance inviting them to purchase an extended warranty. The letters contained statements such as ‘Your Fisher & Paykel [appliance] is now a year old, which means that you have 12 months remaining—after that your appliance won’t be protected against repair costs.’Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (with the state and territory consumer agencies) 2016-04-22 What was searched (4) https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Consumer%20guarantees%20-%20A%20guide%20for%20businesses%20and%20legal%20practitioners.pdf (curl 200, 587KB; extracted with pdftotext - note the guide is two-column so -layout interleaves the columns and defeats substring checks, plain pdftotext reads in flow order and the quotes verify) https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=extended%20warranty https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/warranties https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/consumer-rights-and-guarantees # Amazon AU states that return shipping fees apply to most change of mind returns.
2026-08-16 medium confidence other
1 quote from 1 source Return shipping fees apply to most change of mind returns. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Backed, and a duplicate of a rule this corpus already establishes from the ACCC. Change of mind is not a consumer-guarantee remedy at all, so the ACL imposes no cost allocation and a retailer's own policy governs. All three retailer statements sit under change-of-mind headings, which is what makes them lawful: Amazon's under 'Change of Mind Return Policy' and 'Shipping for change of mind returns', with an explicit carve-out on the same page ('These conditions apply only to change of mind returns and do not apply to items that are returned because they are faulty.'); Kmart's on its /change-of-mind-returns-policy/ page, which is separate from its /consumer-guarantee-returns-policy/ page. If any of these were applied to a faulty-goods return they would be contradicted - the ACCC's very next sentence is 'Businesses can’t apply these same policy conditions to situations where consumers are returning a product due to a major or minor problem.', and the ACCC's 'Return costs' rule would then require reimbursement instead. Kmart does separately charge a collection fee for white goods and big-and-bulky change-of-mind returns, which is also outside the guarantees.
Under consumer law, businesses don’t have to offer refunds and replacements for changes of mind. So a business can put conditions on these change of mind policies, such as:Australian Competition and Consumer Commission 2026-07-12 What was searched (5) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/contacting-a-business-to-fix-a-problem (fetched live, 200; quote verified verbatim) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel (fetched live, 200; 'they got what they asked for but simply changed their mind ... However, if a business has a ‘change of mind’ policy, they must follow it.') https://www.amazon.com.au/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=GKM69DUUYKQWKWX7 (fetched live, 200; both Amazon quotes verified as verbatim substrings after tag-stripping) https://www.kmart.com.au/change-of-mind-returns-policy/ (fetched live, 200; 'For change of mind returns, the delivery fee is non-refundable.' verified verbatim) ACL Sch 2 ss 51-63 and 259-263 - searched for any change-of-mind obligation; there is none # Amazon AU states that a customer whose item is not eligible for Free Returns is responsible for any return shipping costs.
2026-08-16 medium confidence other
1 quote from 1 source If your item is not eligible for Free Returns, you are responsible for any return shipping costs. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Backed, and a duplicate of a rule this corpus already establishes from the ACCC. Change of mind is not a consumer-guarantee remedy at all, so the ACL imposes no cost allocation and a retailer's own policy governs. All three retailer statements sit under change-of-mind headings, which is what makes them lawful: Amazon's under 'Change of Mind Return Policy' and 'Shipping for change of mind returns', with an explicit carve-out on the same page ('These conditions apply only to change of mind returns and do not apply to items that are returned because they are faulty.'); Kmart's on its /change-of-mind-returns-policy/ page, which is separate from its /consumer-guarantee-returns-policy/ page. If any of these were applied to a faulty-goods return they would be contradicted - the ACCC's very next sentence is 'Businesses can’t apply these same policy conditions to situations where consumers are returning a product due to a major or minor problem.', and the ACCC's 'Return costs' rule would then require reimbursement instead. Kmart does separately charge a collection fee for white goods and big-and-bulky change-of-mind returns, which is also outside the guarantees.
Under consumer law, businesses don’t have to offer refunds and replacements for changes of mind. So a business can put conditions on these change of mind policies, such as:Australian Competition and Consumer Commission 2026-07-12 What was searched (5) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/contacting-a-business-to-fix-a-problem (fetched live, 200; quote verified verbatim) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel (fetched live, 200; 'they got what they asked for but simply changed their mind ... However, if a business has a ‘change of mind’ policy, they must follow it.') https://www.amazon.com.au/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=GKM69DUUYKQWKWX7 (fetched live, 200; both Amazon quotes verified as verbatim substrings after tag-stripping) https://www.kmart.com.au/change-of-mind-returns-policy/ (fetched live, 200; 'For change of mind returns, the delivery fee is non-refundable.' verified verbatim) ACL Sch 2 ss 51-63 and 259-263 - searched for any change-of-mind obligation; there is none # Kmart states that for change of mind returns the delivery fee is non-refundable.
2025-10-01 other
1 quote from 1 source For change of mind returns, the delivery fee is non-refundable. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Backed, and a duplicate of a rule this corpus already establishes from the ACCC. Change of mind is not a consumer-guarantee remedy at all, so the ACL imposes no cost allocation and a retailer's own policy governs. All three retailer statements sit under change-of-mind headings, which is what makes them lawful: Amazon's under 'Change of Mind Return Policy' and 'Shipping for change of mind returns', with an explicit carve-out on the same page ('These conditions apply only to change of mind returns and do not apply to items that are returned because they are faulty.'); Kmart's on its /change-of-mind-returns-policy/ page, which is separate from its /consumer-guarantee-returns-policy/ page. If any of these were applied to a faulty-goods return they would be contradicted - the ACCC's very next sentence is 'Businesses can’t apply these same policy conditions to situations where consumers are returning a product due to a major or minor problem.', and the ACCC's 'Return costs' rule would then require reimbursement instead. Kmart does separately charge a collection fee for white goods and big-and-bulky change-of-mind returns, which is also outside the guarantees.
Under consumer law, businesses don’t have to offer refunds and replacements for changes of mind. So a business can put conditions on these change of mind policies, such as:Australian Competition and Consumer Commission 2026-07-12 What was searched (5) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/contacting-a-business-to-fix-a-problem (fetched live, 200; quote verified verbatim) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel (fetched live, 200; 'they got what they asked for but simply changed their mind ... However, if a business has a ‘change of mind’ policy, they must follow it.') https://www.amazon.com.au/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=GKM69DUUYKQWKWX7 (fetched live, 200; both Amazon quotes verified as verbatim substrings after tag-stripping) https://www.kmart.com.au/change-of-mind-returns-policy/ (fetched live, 200; 'For change of mind returns, the delivery fee is non-refundable.' verified verbatim) ACL Sch 2 ss 51-63 and 259-263 - searched for any change-of-mind obligation; there is none # CHOICE states that, regarding who pays for return postage, if a consumer has paid for the shipping and the retailer finds the product does have a problem, the retailer must reimburse the consumer for posting it to them.
2023-01-31 other
1 quote from 1 source If you’ve paid for the shipping and the retailer finds that the product does have a problem, then they must reimburse you for posting it to them, so keep any receipts. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Backed, and a duplicate: the ACCC 'Return costs' section is already in this corpus (raw/task-002-accc-rrrc.faithful.txt line 483 and raw/task-007-accc-consumers_...repair-replace-refund-cancel.txt line 247), so CHOICE is restating the regulator almost word for word, including the keep-your-receipts advice ('Consumers should keep receipts for postage or transport costs so that they can be repaid by the business.'). Worth recording that the statutory hook is indirect: no section of the ACL says in terms 'reimburse return postage'. The nearest is s 259(4), 'The consumer may, by action against the supplier, recover damages for any loss or damage suffered by the consumer because of the failure to comply with the guarantee if it was reasonably foreseeable that the consumer would suffer such loss or damage as a result of such a failure.' The ACCC's flat 'must reimburse' is guidance built on that.
If the business confirms that the product does have a problem, it must reimburse the consumer for any reasonable return costs they have already paid.Australian Competition and Consumer Commission 2026-06-28 What was searched (3) corpus grep: 'return cost' across all ACCC captures in scratchpad/raw https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel (fetched live, 200; quote verified as verbatim substring of the rendered text) ACL Sch 2 ss 259, 263 read at https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00109/2026-07-01/2026-07-01/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_4/document_4.html (fetched live, 4.25 MB) # On the question of who pays for return postage, CHOICE states that if the retailer finds no issue and the retailer paid for the shipping, the consumer may have to reimburse the retailer for transporting and inspecting the item.
2023-01-31 other
1 quote from 1 source If the retailer finds no issue and they paid for the shipping, then you may have to reimburse them for transporting and inspecting the item. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Backed by the regulator and already in this corpus - a duplicate. One difference worth flagging: the ACCC attaches a precondition CHOICE's retelling drops. The business may only charge collection and inspection costs if it 'must give the consumer a reasonable estimate of these costs before collecting the product'. CHOICE's 'you may have to reimburse them for transporting and inspecting the item' is silent on the estimate. Like the reimbursement rule above, this has no express home in the Act; ss 259-263 do not mention inspection costs.
If the business finds that the product does not have a problem, it can make the consumer pay the collection and inspection costs. To do this, the business must give the consumer a reasonable estimate of these costs before collecting the product.Australian Competition and Consumer Commission 2026-06-28 What was searched (3) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel (fetched live, 200; quote verified verbatim) corpus grep: 'inspection cost' / 'collection and inspection' across ACCC captures ACL Sch 2 Part 5-4 (ss 259-267) read at legislation.gov.au document_4 - searched for any provision on inspection costs; none found # CHOICE states that, as to who pays for return postage…
a consumer is responsible for returning a small, easy-to-post faulty item. the business is responsible for taking back something bigger such as a bed or television. 2023-01-31 other
1 quote from 1 source If your faulty item is small and easy to post or transport, you are responsible for returning it to the retailer. But if it’s something bigger, such as a bed or television, the business is responsible for taking it back, but they should still keep you in the loop with how much that process will cost. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
This one has a real statutory home, unlike the two above. ACL s 263(2) puts return on the consumer as the default; s 263(2)(b) excuses it where return would cost the consumer significantly because of the nature of the failure or the size, height or method of attachment of the goods; s 263(3) then makes the supplier collect at its own expense. The ACCC restates it in plain words on the page above - 'Consumers are responsible for returning products that can be posted or easily returned.' and 'Businesses are responsible for paying for the shipping costs or collecting faulty products that are large, heavy or hard to remove, such as:' followed by 'widescreen televisions' and 'beds' - which is where CHOICE's bed-and-television example comes from. Duplicate of material already in this corpus. Note the statutory test is significant cost to the consumer, not size as such; size is one of the listed reasons. Also note s 263 governs rejection (refund or replacement), so it does not on its face cover collection for a repair - the ACCC's page states the wider rule.
(2) The consumer must return the goods to the supplier unless: (a) the goods have already been returned to, or retrieved by, the supplier; or (b) the goods cannot be returned, removed or transported without significant cost to the consumer because of: (i) the nature of the failure to comply with the guarantee to which the rejection relates; or (ii) the size or height, or method of attachment, of the goods. (3) If subsection (2)(b) applies, the supplier must, within a reasonable time, collect the goods at the supplier’s expense.Federal Register of Legislation (Competition and Consumer Act 2010, Schedule 2 - Australian Consumer Law, s 263) 2026-07-01 What was searched (3) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel (fetched live, 200; 'Responsibility for returning products' section verified verbatim, and its examples list 'widescreen televisions' and 'beds') https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00109/2026-07-01/2026-07-01/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_4/document_4.html (fetched live; s 263(2)-(3) verified verbatim) corpus grep: 'Responsibility for returning products' across ACCC captures # CHOICE states that return delivery costs are not specifically referenced in the Australian Consumer Law.
2019-01-22 medium confidence other
1 quote from 1 source Though not specifically referenced in the ACL, we don’t think you should be out of pocket for delivery costs if you have to return faulty goods. A source exists, but not for this checked 2026-08-16
Ambiguous because the answer flips depending on which cost is meant, and CHOICE's sentence does not say. Cost of getting the goods back to the supplier IS specifically referenced: ACL s 263(2)(b) turns on whether goods 'cannot be returned, removed or transported without significant cost to the consumer', and s 263(3) then requires the supplier to 'collect the goods at the supplier’s expense'. So it is not true that the Act is silent on return costs. But reimbursement of delivery or postage a consumer has already paid - which is the thing at issue in the Kogan piece, where Kogan refused to refund delivery costs on a refund or store credit - has no express provision. s 263(4)(a)(i) requires a refund of 'any money paid by the consumer for the goods', which need not cover the delivery fee, and the only general route is s 259(4) damages for reasonably foreseeable loss. CHOICE's hedged phrasing ('we don't think you should be out of pocket') reflects that gap honestly. Note also that the ACCC states the reimbursement obligation flatly on its 'Return costs' page while the Act does not, so the regulator's guidance goes further than any provision CHOICE could have cited.
(b) the goods cannot be returned, removed or transported without significant cost to the consumer because of:Federal Register of Legislation (Competition and Consumer Act 2010, Schedule 2 - Australian Consumer Law, s 263) 2026-07-01 What was searched (4) https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00109/2026-07-01/2026-07-01/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_4/document_4.html (fetched live, 4.25 MB; read ss 259-263 in full and searched Part 5-4 for cost/expense/postage/delivery provisions) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel (fetched live, 200) corpus: raw/task-007-choice-kogan-returns-and-refunds-issues.txt lines 555-557 for the full CHOICE context corpus grep: 'return cost', 'postage', 'shipping cost' across ACCC, CAV and ACL captures # Bunnings states that its goods come with guarantees that cannot be excluded under the Australian Consumer Law. Bunnings states that customers are entitled to a replacement or refund for a major failure of its goods. 2026-08-16 other
1 quote from 1 source Our goods come with guarantees that cannot be excluded under the Australian Consumer Law. You're entitled to a replacement or refund for a major failure, and to compensation for other reasonably foreseeable loss or damage. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
STRONGEST result in this brief, and it reframes the claim: this is not Bunnings making an assertion, it is Bunnings reproducing Commonwealth-prescribed text almost word for word. Regulation 90(2) of the Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010, made for ACL s 102(1), prescribes this exact wording as the text a warranty against defects relating to goods MUST include. Bunnings' version differs only cosmetically ('You're' for 'You are', a comma before 'and to compensation', 'other' for 'any other', 'but the failure' for 'and the failure'). Kmart carries the same prescribed text on its own policy page, which is why the two read identically — they are copies of one regulation, not independent statements, and that is the right answer to 'where did this sentence come from'. The substance behind the prescribed text: ACL s 64 makes the guarantees non-excludable ('a term of a contract ... is void to the extent that the term purports to exclude, restrict or modify' a guarantee); s 259(3) with s 263 gives the consumer the choice to reject and take a refund or replacement for a major failure; s 259(4) gives damages 'for any loss or damage suffered by the consumer because of the failure ... if it was reasonably foreseeable'. The ACCC states the remedy the same way: for a major problem the business 'must give the consumer the choice of a: refund, or replacement of the same type of product.' Both researchIds point at halves of one sentence, so they are grouped.
For the purposes of subparagraph (1)(c)(i), the text is ‘Our goods come with guarantees that cannot be excluded under the Australian Consumer Law. You are entitled to a replacement or refund for a major failure and compensation for any other reasonably foreseeable loss or damage. You are also entitled to have the goods repaired or replaced if the goods fail to be of acceptable quality and the failure does not amount to a major failure’.Federal Register of Legislation (Commonwealth of Australia) — Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010, reg 90(2) 2026-07-01 What was searched (6) https://www.bunnings.com.au/policies/returns (fetched successfully with a browser user-agent; the quoted sentences are live — contrary to the note that Bunnings yields nothing to curl) https://api.prod.legislation.gov.au/v1/titles?$filter=contains(name,'Competition and Consumer Regulations') — resolved the instrument id to F1996B01420 https://www.legislation.gov.au/F1996B01420/latest/latest/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_1/document_1.html — Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010, reg 90 curl of the ACL to file, read ss 64, 259(3), 259(4), 263 — https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00109/2026-07-01/2026-07-01/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_4/document_4.html https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=warranties+against+defects https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel # Kmart states that where a failure is minor it reserves its right to offer to repair only.
2025-10-01 other
1 quote from 1 source If the failure is minor, we reserve our right to offer to repair only. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Correct restatement of ACL s 259(2)(a) read with s 261, which lets the supplier discharge a non-major-failure remedy 'by repairing the goods; or (c) by replacing the goods with goods of an identical type; or (d) by refunding' — the election is the supplier's. CAV puts it as 'The store chooses whether to: provide a replacement that is identical, or of similar value / repair the product within a reasonable time, or / give a refund.' Two limits Kmart's sentence omits: s 259(2) only applies where the failure CAN be remedied (an irremediable non-major failure falls under s 259(3) and the consumer may reject the goods), and s 259(2)(b) lets the consumer have the failure fixed elsewhere at Kmart's cost, or reject the goods, if Kmart refuses or fails to repair within a reasonable time. CORPUS DUPLICATE — the same Kmart sentence is traced under a separate id in the 'minor failure' brief, and the underlying rule is already established from the ACCC and the ACL elsewhere in this corpus.
The business does not have to offer a replacement or refund for a minor problem, although it can choose to do this.Australian Competition and Consumer Commission 2026-06-28 What was searched (4) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/consumers-and-businesses/products-and-services/problems-with-a-product/faulty-product curl of the ACL to file, read ss 259, 260, 261 — https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00109/2026-07-01/2026-07-01/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_4/document_4.html https://www.kmart.com.au/consumer-guarantee-returns-policy/ (verified the quoted sentence is live) # Regarding replacement, Kmart states that it reserves the right to assess the condition and age of returned goods before providing a repair, exchange or refund.
2025-10-01 other
1 quote from 1 source Kmart reserves the right to assess the condition and age of returned goods prior to providing a repair, exchange or refund. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Both halves are supported. The right to assess is stated by the ACCC in terms. The relevance of AGE is statutory: ACL s 54(2) requires goods to be 'durable' as 'a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the state and condition of the goods ... would regard as acceptable having regard to the matters in subsection (3)', and s 54(3) lists '(a) the nature of the goods; and (b) the price of the goods (if relevant)'. CAV works the same factors: 'the type of product – for example, a large appliance such as a fridge is expected to last longer than a toaster'. THE BOUNDARY, which Kmart's sentence does not cross but which sits immediately next to it: assessing age as an input to the acceptable-quality test is legitimate; refusing a remedy BECAUSE the manufacturer's warranty has expired is not — the ACCC's durability guidance (2 Nov 2022, already in this corpus) states a reasonable consumer can expect goods to outlast the warranty period, and HP was penalised $3m in 2013 for representing that the warranty period limited remedies. Assessment must also not become delay: s 259(2)(b) runs on a reasonable time regardless.
A business has the right to assess the product or service before they provide a remedy.Australian Competition and Consumer Commission 2026-06-28 What was searched (5) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/consumers-and-businesses/products-and-services/problems-with-a-product/faulty-product ACL ss 54(2) and 54(3) via curl+grep of the consolidated Act https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=repair+replace+refund https://www.kmart.com.au/consumer-guarantee-returns-policy/ (verified live) # Kmart states that it reserves the right not to offer an exchange, exchange voucher or refund for faulty goods where the product fault is a result of misuse or neglect.
2025-10-01 other
1 quote from 1 source Kmart reserves the right not to offer an exchange, exchange voucher or refund where the product fault is a result of misuse or neglect. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Backed by the Act and by both regulators. 'Misuse' maps to s 54(6)(b) 'damaged by abnormal use'; 'neglect' maps to s 54(6)(a) 'fails to take reasonable steps to prevent them from becoming of unacceptable quality'. The ACCC lists among the occasions a consumer is not entitled to a remedy that 'the problem with the product was caused by the consumer misusing it'; CAV lists 'a defect due to abnormal use – for example, a television is broken by something hitting the screen' and 'fair wear and tear alone' as issues that are neither minor nor major problems. ACL s 262(1)(c) separately bars rejection where 'the goods were damaged after being delivered to the consumer for reasons not related to their state or condition at the time of supply'. ONE DRAFTING POINT worth recording: s 54(6) is expressed conjunctively — paragraphs (a) AND (b) — so on a strict reading neglect alone, without damage by abnormal use, does not by itself take goods outside the acceptable-quality guarantee. Kmart's disjunctive 'misuse or neglect' is therefore slightly wider than s 54(6) on its face, though the practical gap is small and the burden of showing misuse rests on the retailer, not the consumer.
Goods do not fail to be of acceptable quality if: (a) the consumer to whom they are supplied causes them to become of unacceptable quality, or fails to take reasonable steps to prevent them from becoming of unacceptable quality; and (b) they are damaged by abnormal use.Federal Register of Legislation (Commonwealth of Australia) — Competition and Consumer Act 2010, Schedule 2 (Australian Consumer Law), s 54(6) 2026-07-01 What was searched (4) curl of the ACL to file, grepped s 54 — s 54(6) and s 54(7); also s 262(1)(c) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/consumers-and-businesses/products-and-services/problems-with-a-product/faulty-product https://www.kmart.com.au/consumer-guarantee-returns-policy/ (verified live) # Faulty goods that are Kmart branded products meeting consumer guarantee return requirements are…
accepted for return by Kmart without proof of purchase. provided an exchange voucher by Kmart when returned without proof of purchase. 2025-10-01 other
1 quote from 1 source Kmart will accept returns of Kmart branded products (Anko, OXX, etc) that meet consumer guarantee return requirements without proof of purchase. In such cases, an exchange voucher will be provided. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
This is a retailer going ABOVE the statutory floor, and the regulator's own wording is what makes the exchange-voucher limit defensible. The ACCC confirms the baseline — 'The product does not have to be in its original packaging, but a business is entitled to ask consumers to provide some form of proof of purchase' — and CAV adds that where the consumer cannot show where the product was bought, the supplier 'does not have to accept the claim, but may still choose to do so'. Kmart is choosing to. Because entitlement under s 259 was never established, the exchange voucher is an ex gratia remedy and does not run into ACL s 259(3)/s 263 or the ACCC's rule that for a major problem the business 'must give the consumer the choice of a: refund, or replacement of the same type of product' and that 'Refunds should be provided in the same form as the original payment'. THE LINE TO WATCH: the concession is confined to Kmart-branded goods returned WITHOUT proof of purchase. If a consumer does produce proof of purchase and the failure is major, an exchange voucher would not discharge s 259(3) — the choice of refund or replacement is the consumer's, and Kmart's own policy says so at the top of the same page. Nothing on the Kmart page suggests otherwise; the claim as recorded is accurate.
If a consumer cannot show where the product or service was purchased, the supplier or manufacturer does not have to accept the claim, but may still choose to do so.Consumer Affairs Victoria 2023-10-13 What was searched (4) https://www.kmart.com.au/consumer-guarantee-returns-policy/ (fetched; both quoted sentences verified live) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/consumers-and-businesses/products-and-services/refunds-repairs-and-returns/receipts-and-other-proof-of-transaction ACL s 100 (supplier must provide proof of transaction) and s 259(3), s 263 via curl+grep of the consolidated Act # Myer states that if the failure is minor, Myer…
will repair the item within a reasonable time. may at its discretion replace the item or refund the customer. 2026-08-16 other
1 quote from 1 source If the failure is minor, we will repair the item (or, at our discretion, we may replace the item or refund you) within a reasonable time. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Three retellings of one rule, all correct. Statutory chain: ACL s 259(2)(a) — 'If the failure to comply with the guarantee can be remedied and is not a major failure: (a) the consumer may require the supplier to remedy the failure within a reasonable time' — and s 261, which lets the supplier discharge that requirement 'by repairing the goods; or (c) by replacing the goods with goods of an identical type; or (d) by refunding' any money paid. The election is the supplier's, which is exactly what Kmart ('we reserve our right to offer to repair only'), Myer ('or, at our discretion, we may replace the item or refund you') and CHOICE ('only obligated to repair it free of charge') each say. Consumer Affairs Victoria puts it most plainly: 'The store chooses whether to: provide a replacement that is identical, or of similar value / repair the product within a reasonable time, or / give a refund.' TWO LIMITS the retellings all omit. (1) s 259(2) only bites where the failure CAN be remedied; a non-major failure that cannot be remedied falls into s 259(3) and the consumer may reject the goods, so a flat 'if minor, repair only' overreaches in that case. (2) s 259(2)(b): if the supplier refuses, or fails to remedy within a reasonable time, the consumer may have it fixed elsewhere and recover the cost, or reject the goods — ACCC: 'If the business can't or won't repair or fix the problem within a reasonable amount of time, or at all, a consumer is entitled to ... get a refund or replacement instead'. Note also that this is a CORPUS DUPLICATE: the supplier's-election rule for non-major failures is already established from the ACCC and the ACL elsewhere in this corpus; these are retailers restating it correctly.
The business does not have to offer a replacement or refund for a minor problem, although it can choose to do this.Australian Competition and Consumer Commission 2026-06-28 What was searched (6) https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=repair+replace+refund https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/consumers-and-businesses/products-and-services/problems-with-a-product/faulty-product curl of ACL (Competition and Consumer Act 2010 Sch 2) full text to file, grepped ss 259, 260, 261 — https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00109/2026-07-01/2026-07-01/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_4/document_4.html https://www.kmart.com.au/consumer-guarantee-returns-policy/ (verified the quoted sentence is live) https://www.myer.com.au/returns (fetched; consumer-guarantee wording present) # CHOICE states that minor problems are anything that can be fixed within a reasonable period of time.
2026-07-09 medium confidence other
1 quote from 1 source Minor problems are anything that can be fixed within a reasonable period of time. The primary source says otherwise checked 2026-08-16
CHOICE has turned a worked example into a definition, and the statute contradicts it on real cases. 'Minor problem' is not a defined term in the ACL at all: s 260 defines MAJOR failure and everything else is minor by residue. Only two of s 260(1)'s five limbs — (c) and (d) — turn on whether the goods 'cannot, easily and within a reasonable time, be remedied'. The other three do not: (a) a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the failure would not have bought the goods; (b) 'the goods depart in one or more significant respects: (i) if they were supplied by description—from that description'; and (e) the goods are unsafe. So a good that is UNSAFE but trivially and quickly fixable is a major failure under s 260(1)(e) while CHOICE's rule would classify it as minor, and the consumer would be told they are entitled only to a repair when the Act gives them the choice of refund or replacement. Consumer Affairs Victoria states the residual test correctly and marks its 'fixed easily and within a reasonable time' line as an EXAMPLE, not the test: 'If the product has some other problem that is not covered by ‘major problem’ above, it can be considered to be a minor problem. For example, it does not do what it is normally supposed to do but can be fixed easily and within a reasonable time.' CHOICE dropped the 'For example'.
(e) the goods are not of acceptable quality because they are unsafe.Federal Register of Legislation (Commonwealth of Australia) — Competition and Consumer Act 2010, Schedule 2 (Australian Consumer Law), s 260(1) 2026-07-01 What was searched (5) grep of ACL full text for 'minor failure' and 'minor problem' — neither term is defined anywhere in the Act ACL s 260 'When a failure to comply with a guarantee is a major failure', read in full https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/consumers-and-businesses/products-and-services/problems-with-a-product/faulty-product https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel https://www.choice.com.au/shopping/consumer-rights-and-advice/your-rights/buying-guides/what-to-do-with-a-faulty-product # CHOICE states that if a product has two or more minor failures it can be considered a major failure.
2026-07-09 other
1 quote from 1 source If your faulty product has two or more minor failures of the consumer guarantees, it can be considered a major failure. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Direct statutory hit, and CHOICE's hedge ('can be considered') is the right hedge — s 260(2) is not automatic. Both limbs must be satisfied: two or more failures AND a reasonable consumer, fully acquainted with all of them taken as a whole, would not have acquired the goods. The Act's own note adds 'The multiple failures do not need to relate to the same guarantee', and s 260(3) makes clear the aggregation applies 'regardless of whether the consumer has taken action under section 259 in relation to any of the failures'. Provenance worth recording: this subsection is not original ACL — ACL s 303 shows it was inserted by Part 1 of Schedule 4 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 6) Act 2020 and applies only to goods supplied under a contract entered into on or after that Part's commencement, so the rule does not reach older purchases. The ACCC's plain-English version of the same rule: a major problem means the product 'has either one serious problem or several smaller problems that would stop someone buying the product if they knew about them beforehand'.
(a) the failure is one of 2 or more failures to comply with a guarantee referred to in section 259(1)(b) that apply to the supply; and (b) the goods would not have been acquired by a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the nature and extent of those failures, taken as a whole.Federal Register of Legislation (Commonwealth of Australia) — Competition and Consumer Act 2010, Schedule 2 (Australian Consumer Law), s 260(2) 2026-07-01 What was searched (4) grep of ACL full text for 'major failure' — ACL s 260(2) and s 260(3) grep of ACL Chapter 6 transitional provisions — s 303 'Application of amendments relating to multiple non-major consumer guarantee failures' https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel https://www.choice.com.au/shopping/consumer-rights-and-advice/your-rights/buying-guides/what-to-do-with-a-faulty-product # Kmart states that if the failure is minor it reserves its right to offer to repair only.
2025-10-01 other
1 quote from 1 source If the failure is minor, we reserve our right to offer to repair only. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Three retellings of one rule, all correct. Statutory chain: ACL s 259(2)(a) — 'If the failure to comply with the guarantee can be remedied and is not a major failure: (a) the consumer may require the supplier to remedy the failure within a reasonable time' — and s 261, which lets the supplier discharge that requirement 'by repairing the goods; or (c) by replacing the goods with goods of an identical type; or (d) by refunding' any money paid. The election is the supplier's, which is exactly what Kmart ('we reserve our right to offer to repair only'), Myer ('or, at our discretion, we may replace the item or refund you') and CHOICE ('only obligated to repair it free of charge') each say. Consumer Affairs Victoria puts it most plainly: 'The store chooses whether to: provide a replacement that is identical, or of similar value / repair the product within a reasonable time, or / give a refund.' TWO LIMITS the retellings all omit. (1) s 259(2) only bites where the failure CAN be remedied; a non-major failure that cannot be remedied falls into s 259(3) and the consumer may reject the goods, so a flat 'if minor, repair only' overreaches in that case. (2) s 259(2)(b): if the supplier refuses, or fails to remedy within a reasonable time, the consumer may have it fixed elsewhere and recover the cost, or reject the goods — ACCC: 'If the business can't or won't repair or fix the problem within a reasonable amount of time, or at all, a consumer is entitled to ... get a refund or replacement instead'. Note also that this is a CORPUS DUPLICATE: the supplier's-election rule for non-major failures is already established from the ACCC and the ACL elsewhere in this corpus; these are retailers restating it correctly.
The business does not have to offer a replacement or refund for a minor problem, although it can choose to do this.Australian Competition and Consumer Commission 2026-06-28 What was searched (6) https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=repair+replace+refund https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/consumers-and-businesses/products-and-services/problems-with-a-product/faulty-product curl of ACL (Competition and Consumer Act 2010 Sch 2) full text to file, grepped ss 259, 260, 261 — https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00109/2026-07-01/2026-07-01/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_4/document_4.html https://www.kmart.com.au/consumer-guarantee-returns-policy/ (verified the quoted sentence is live) https://www.myer.com.au/returns (fetched; consumer-guarantee wording present) # CHOICE states that where a product has a minor issue the business…
is only obligated to repair it free of charge. does not have to offer a replacement or refund. 2023-01-31 other
1 quote from 1 source If your product has a minor issue, the business is only obligated to repair it free of charge – it doesn’t have to offer you a replacement or refund. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Three retellings of one rule, all correct. Statutory chain: ACL s 259(2)(a) — 'If the failure to comply with the guarantee can be remedied and is not a major failure: (a) the consumer may require the supplier to remedy the failure within a reasonable time' — and s 261, which lets the supplier discharge that requirement 'by repairing the goods; or (c) by replacing the goods with goods of an identical type; or (d) by refunding' any money paid. The election is the supplier's, which is exactly what Kmart ('we reserve our right to offer to repair only'), Myer ('or, at our discretion, we may replace the item or refund you') and CHOICE ('only obligated to repair it free of charge') each say. Consumer Affairs Victoria puts it most plainly: 'The store chooses whether to: provide a replacement that is identical, or of similar value / repair the product within a reasonable time, or / give a refund.' TWO LIMITS the retellings all omit. (1) s 259(2) only bites where the failure CAN be remedied; a non-major failure that cannot be remedied falls into s 259(3) and the consumer may reject the goods, so a flat 'if minor, repair only' overreaches in that case. (2) s 259(2)(b): if the supplier refuses, or fails to remedy within a reasonable time, the consumer may have it fixed elsewhere and recover the cost, or reject the goods — ACCC: 'If the business can't or won't repair or fix the problem within a reasonable amount of time, or at all, a consumer is entitled to ... get a refund or replacement instead'. Note also that this is a CORPUS DUPLICATE: the supplier's-election rule for non-major failures is already established from the ACCC and the ACL elsewhere in this corpus; these are retailers restating it correctly.
The business does not have to offer a replacement or refund for a minor problem, although it can choose to do this.Australian Competition and Consumer Commission 2026-06-28 What was searched (6) https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=repair+replace+refund https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/consumers-and-businesses/products-and-services/problems-with-a-product/faulty-product curl of ACL (Competition and Consumer Act 2010 Sch 2) full text to file, grepped ss 259, 260, 261 — https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00109/2026-07-01/2026-07-01/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_4/document_4.html https://www.kmart.com.au/consumer-guarantee-returns-policy/ (verified the quoted sentence is live) https://www.myer.com.au/returns (fetched; consumer-guarantee wording present) # Kmart states that a product returned for change of mind must be in resaleable condition. Kmart states that resaleable condition means the product is in its original packaging including instruction manuals and all accessories. 2026-08-16 medium confidence other
2 quotes from 1 source The product must be in resaleable condition, meaning: It is in its original packaging, including instruction manuals and all accessories; and Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Backed, and this is largely a duplicate - the ACCC page above is already in this corpus and the corpus already establishes the change-of-mind / guarantee-remedy distinction. The three words that decide it are present in both retailers' pages: Kmart's requirement is on /change-of-mind-returns-policy/ (Kmart keeps a separate /consumer-guarantee-returns-policy/), and Bunnings' 'All returned goods must be unused, in original packaging and in saleable condition' sits under its 'Change of mind returns/exchanges' heading, not its ACL section. The ACCC's own list of lawful change-of-mind conditions includes verbatim 'requiring a product to be in original packaging.' and 'requiring a sale tag to still be attached to the product'. The same conditions applied to a faulty-goods remedy would be unlawful - ACL s 259(7) ('The consumer may take action under this section whether or not the goods are in their original packaging') and the ACCC's next line, 'Businesses can’t apply these same policy conditions to situations where consumers are returning a product due to a major or minor problem.' Neither retailer does that here.
Under consumer law, businesses don’t have to offer refunds and replacements for changes of mind. So a business can put conditions on these change of mind policies, such as:Australian Competition and Consumer Commission 2026-07-12 What was searched (4) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/contacting-a-business-to-fix-a-problem (fetched live, 200; quote verified as substring) https://www.kmart.com.au/change-of-mind-returns-policy/ (fetched live, 200; 'resaleable' present, sits under the 'Change of mind requirements' heading) corpus capture raw/traceA-retail-bunnings.html.txt lines 481-494 (Bunnings text sits under the 'Change of mind returns/exchanges' heading) https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/products-and-services/business-practices/store-policies/no-refund-signs (fetched live, 200) # All sale items returned for change of mind are required by Bunnings to be…
unused. in original packaging. in saleable condition. 2026-08-16 medium confidence other
1 quote from 1 source All returned goods must be unused, in original packaging and in saleable condition Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Backed, and this is largely a duplicate - the ACCC page above is already in this corpus and the corpus already establishes the change-of-mind / guarantee-remedy distinction. The three words that decide it are present in both retailers' pages: Kmart's requirement is on /change-of-mind-returns-policy/ (Kmart keeps a separate /consumer-guarantee-returns-policy/), and Bunnings' 'All returned goods must be unused, in original packaging and in saleable condition' sits under its 'Change of mind returns/exchanges' heading, not its ACL section. The ACCC's own list of lawful change-of-mind conditions includes verbatim 'requiring a product to be in original packaging.' and 'requiring a sale tag to still be attached to the product'. The same conditions applied to a faulty-goods remedy would be unlawful - ACL s 259(7) ('The consumer may take action under this section whether or not the goods are in their original packaging') and the ACCC's next line, 'Businesses can’t apply these same policy conditions to situations where consumers are returning a product due to a major or minor problem.' Neither retailer does that here.
Under consumer law, businesses don’t have to offer refunds and replacements for changes of mind. So a business can put conditions on these change of mind policies, such as:Australian Competition and Consumer Commission 2026-07-12 What was searched (4) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/contacting-a-business-to-fix-a-problem (fetched live, 200; quote verified as substring) https://www.kmart.com.au/change-of-mind-returns-policy/ (fetched live, 200; 'resaleable' present, sits under the 'Change of mind requirements' heading) corpus capture raw/traceA-retail-bunnings.html.txt lines 481-494 (Bunnings text sits under the 'Change of mind returns/exchanges' heading) https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/products-and-services/business-practices/store-policies/no-refund-signs (fetched live, 200) # Sprintlaw gives 'Sale items are final sale and not eligible for change-of-mind returns' as an example of refund policy wording that usually works.
2025-06-15 other
2 quotes from 1 source Write in plain English and avoid absolutes. Examples that usually work: “Sale items are final sale and not eligible for change‑of‑mind returns.” Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Backed directly by the regulator, and this is a duplicate of material already in the corpus. The quoted bullet is one of the ACCC's own listed lawful conditions on a change-of-mind policy. CAV agrees on the same distinction from the other direction: it lists 'No refund on sale items' among signs that are 'against the law', then says 'Signs that state ‘No refunds will be given if you have simply changed your mind’ are acceptable.' (https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/products-and-services/business-practices/store-policies/no-refund-signs, last updated 2023-10-13). Sprintlaw's wording carries the qualifier 'change-of-mind', which is precisely the difference between the unlawful sign and the lawful one.
excluding specific products, for example sale itemsAustralian Competition and Consumer Commission 2026-07-12 What was searched (3) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/contacting-a-business-to-fix-a-problem (fetched live, 200; bullet verified as verbatim substring) https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/products-and-services/business-practices/store-policies/no-refund-signs (fetched live, 200) corpus grep: 'sale item' across ACCC and CAV captures # LegalVision states that whether a consumer purchased an item in a sale is not a factor in determining their rights.
2016-07-20 other
1 quote from 1 source The fact that a consumer purchased an item in a sale (or not) is not a factor in determining their rights. A source exists, but not for this checked 2026-08-16
This is the ACCC-vs-CAV disagreement TRACE-NOTES records, and LegalVision is repeating the unqualified version, so ambiguous rather than contradicted. Narrowly it is right and already established in this corpus from the primary sources: the consumer guarantees in ACL ss 51-63 are not conditioned on discount, and CAV says so in terms. Stated absolutely it is not right, on three counts, each from a primary source. (1) ACL s 54(3)(b) makes 'the price of the goods (if relevant)' an express matter in judging acceptable quality, so sale price IS a factor. (2) ACL s 54(4)-(5) removes the acceptable-quality guarantee for defects specifically drawn to the consumer's attention before supply - the ordinary reason an item is on a seconds/clearance rack - and CAV states this on the same page ('If a product is on sale because it is faulty, a consumer cannot claim a refund for any problem the store or seller informed them of before the sale.'). (3) The ACCC expressly permits a change-of-mind policy to exclude sale items (see the finding on Sprintlaw below), so sale status is decisive for change-of-mind rights. LegalVision's own framing does qualify it ('the key question is always whether a Consumer Guarantee is at issue'), which is the correct reading.
Consumers have the same legal refund rights on sale items as they would have on full-price products.Consumer Affairs Victoria 2023-10-13 What was searched (5) corpus grep: 'sale item' across all ACCC and CAV captures in scratchpad/raw https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/consumers-and-businesses/products-and-services/refunds-repairs-and-returns/sales-seconds-factory-outlets-second-hand/sales-items-refunds (fetched live, 200) https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/products-and-services/business-practices/store-policies/no-refund-signs (fetched live, 200) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/contacting-a-business-to-fix-a-problem (fetched live, 200) ACL Sch 2 s 54 read from local legislation.gov.au capture (raw/task-000-acl-vol4.txt lines 2747-2780) # CHOICE states that a consumer…
needs to have a major problem to cancel a service. cannot cancel a service where the problem is minor or can be reasonably fixed. 2023-12-06 other
1 quote from 1 source If you have a minor service problem, or it can be reasonably fixed, you can’t cancel the service. You need to have a major problem to cancel the service. The primary source says otherwise checked 2026-08-16
CHOICE has lost one word and turned a timing rule into an absolute bar. The statute is explicit that a MINOR, remediable service failure DOES lead to a right to terminate - s 267(2)(b)(ii) - once the supplier has been asked to fix it and refuses or fails to do so within a reasonable time. The bar is not 'you need a major problem'; it is 'you must give the supplier the chance first'. The ACCC's own consumer guide says exactly that, and the missing word is visible: 'You cannot immediately cancel a service if the problem is minor or can be fixed.' (https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Consumer%20guarantees%20-%20a%20guide%20for%20consumers%20-%20July%202021.pdf, section 'Cancelling a service contract'). CHOICE drops 'immediately'. The ACCC's live consumer page is even more direct, under the heading 'When the business can't or won't fix a minor problem': 'If the business can't or won't repair or fix the problem within a reasonable amount of time, or at all, a consumer is entitled to: ... keep the product or cancel the service contract, and be compensated for the drop in value caused by the problem.' (https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel). What IS true, and is presumably what CHOICE meant, is that a major failure lets the consumer terminate straight away under s 267(3)(a) without first requesting a remedy. Both claims under this id are the two halves of one sentence and are grouped. Practical significance is high: a reader who believes CHOICE's version will conclude they are stuck with a service provider who simply never gets around to fixing a minor fault.
if such a requirement is made of the supplier but the supplier refuses or fails to comply with the requirement, or fails to comply with the requirement within a reasonable time—the consumer may: (i) otherwise have the failure remedied and, by action against the supplier, recover all reasonable costs incurred by the consumer in having the failure so remedied; or (ii) terminate the contract for the supply of the services.Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Schedule 2 - Australian Consumer Law, s 267(2)(b) 2026-07-01 What was searched (4) grep ACL Sch 2 ss 267-269 in local copy of legislation.gov.au C2004A00109 document_4.html (curl to file, not WebFetch) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel (curl, live, verified) https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Consumer%20guarantees%20-%20a%20guide%20for%20consumers%20-%20July%202021.pdf (downloaded, pdftotext, quote verified at p. 'Cancelling a service contract') corpus grep 'cancel the service' across raw/*.txt - raw/task-001-accc-guide-cons-raw.txt:348, raw/task-001-accc-guide-biz-raw.txt:1690, raw/task-007-accc-consumers_problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought_repair-replace-refund-cancel.txt:223, raw/task-003-choice-bad-service.txt:557 # CHOICE states that a consumer cannot cancel a service if…
they have changed their mind. the problem is outside the supplier's control. they want the service provided in a way that goes against the supplier's advice. they did not clearly communicate what they wanted. 2023-12-06 other
2 quotes from 1 source You also can’t cancel a service if: You’ve changed your mind Your problem is outside the supplier’s control You want the service provided in a way that goes against the supplier’s advice You didn’t clearly communicate what you wanted from the supplier Backing found checked 2026-08-16
DUPLICATE / our bookkeeping artefact: CHOICE is restating the ACCC's own exceptions list, and that ACCC page is ALREADY in this corpus (raw/task-007-accc-consumers_problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought_repair-replace-refund-cancel.txt, raw/task-002-accc-rrrc.faithful.txt, raw/traceF-accc-rrrc.txt). The quoted bullet sits under the ACCC heading 'Occasions when consumers aren't entitled to a repair, replacement or refund', which also carries CHOICE's change-of-mind item almost verbatim - 'they got what they asked for but simply changed their mind, found the product cheaper somewhere else, or decided they didn't like the purchase or had no use for it' - and CHOICE's outside-the-supplier's-control item - 'the problem with a service was caused by the actions of someone other than the business.' Statutory grounding for each: change of mind is not a guarantee failure at all, so s 267(1)(b) is never engaged; outside the supplier's control is s 267(1)(c), which excludes a failure caused only by 'an act, default or omission of, or a representation made by, any person other than the supplier' or 'a cause independent of human control that occurred after the services were supplied'; against the supplier's advice and failure to communicate the purpose are both s 61 - s 61(1)(b) and (2)(b) require the particular purpose or desired result to be 'made known to the supplier', and s 61(3) removes the guarantee where 'the consumer did not rely on, or... it was unreasonable for the consumer to rely on, the skill or judgment of the supplier'. TWO OVER-BREADTHS worth flagging, which CHOICE inherits from the ACCC's simplification rather than inventing. First, s 61(3) knocks out only the fitness-for-purpose and desired-result guarantees; it leaves s 60 (due care and skill) and s 62 (reasonable time) intact, so a consumer who overrode the supplier's advice can still cancel for a major failure of workmanship. Second, s 267(1)(c) opens with 'unless the guarantee is the guarantee under section 60', so the someone-else / beyond-human-control exception does not apply to due care and skill either. Neither the ACCC list nor CHOICE's says so.
asked for a service to be done in a certain way against the advice of the businessAustralian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) 2026-08-17 What was searched (4) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel (curl, live) - 'Occasions when consumers aren't entitled to a repair, replacement or refund' grep ACL Sch 2 s 267(1)(c) and s 61 in local copy of legislation.gov.au C2004A00109 document_4.html https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Consumer%20guarantees%20-%20a%20guide%20for%20consumers%20-%20July%202021.pdf ('When you may not be entitled to a remedy') corpus grep 'not entitled to a remedy' across raw/*.txt - raw/task-001-accc-guide-biz-raw.txt:1706 (services), :1126 (goods) # LegalVision asserts that the November 2019 gift card rules aligned with pre-existing NSW state-level protections introduced in 2018.
2026-04-22 other
1 quote from 1 source Since the ACL amendments took effect in November 2019, all gift cards sold in Australia must remain redeemable for a minimum of three years, aligning with NSW's pre-existing state-level protections introduced in 2018. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Backed from the Commonwealth's own explanatory material, which is the right primary source here because the NSW legislation site (legislation.nsw.gov.au) and AustLII both return 403 to automated fetching — I could not read the NSW Act itself and say so rather than guess. The EM is linked from the ACCC's gift cards page. It restates the point at 2.83: 'The Fair Trading Amendment (Ticket Scalping and Gift Cards) Act 2017 was passed by the NSW Parliament on 18 October 2017, with the new law commencing on 31 March 2018. The new law introduced a mandatory three year minimum expiry date for gift cards and gift card vouchers sold to a consumer in NSW, as well as a ban on post-purchase fees.' So 'pre-existing state-level protections introduced in 2018' is right on the date and right on the substance. TWO QUALIFICATIONS. (1) 'Aligning' overstates the fit: the EM records that 'In NSW, upfront fees are permitted but post-purchase fees are not', and that NSW carries its own exclusions in Regulation 23A of the Fair Trading Regulation 2012 — the schemes are similar, not identical, and LegalVision's own companion article notes NSW retains its state-specific laws while South Australia repealed its equivalent. (2) The same LegalVision sentence claims 'all gift cards sold in Australia must remain redeemable for a minimum of three years', which is too broad — the ACCC lists nine categories the 3-year rule does not reach, including reloadable cards, promotional giveaways, genuine-discount cards, employee reward and loyalty-program cards and second-hand cards.
On 18 October 2017, New South Wales (NSW) Parliament passed the Fair Trading Amendment (Ticket Scalping and Gift Cards) Act 2017 (NSW) (the NSW Act). The NSW Act, which commenced on 31 March 2018, introduced a minimum three year expiry for gift cards sold in NSW.Parliament of Australia — Explanatory Memorandum, Treasury Laws Amendment (Gift Cards) Bill 2018, para 1.4 2018-09-20 What was searched (6) Explanatory Memorandum to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Gift Cards) Bill 2018 (PDF), paras 1.4, 2.3 and 2.83–2.84 https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/html/inforce/2018-03-31/act-1987-068 — HTTP 403 to both curl and WebFetch (NSW legislation site bot-blocks) https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/pdf/asmade/act-2017-61 — HTTP 403 https://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/num_act/ftasagca2017n61542/ and classic.austlii.edu.au equivalent — HTTP 403 https://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/buying-products-and-services/gift-cards — resolves to a general 'Your rights as a shopper' hub with no gift card content https://legalvision.com.au/legalities-surrounding-expired-gift-cards/ (verified the quoted sentence is live) # Sprintlaw asserts that gift card expiry laws in Australia are one of the most misunderstood topics by both customers and business owners.
2026-01-18 medium confidence other
1 quote from 1 source gift card expiry laws in Australia are one of the most searched (and misunderstood) topics by both customers and business owners Searched, nothing found checked 2026-08-16
Unfalsifiable opening puffery with no chain to follow. 'Most searched' is a claim about search-engine volume and no volume figure, tool, period or comparison set is given; 'misunderstood' is asserted without any survey. Nothing on the ACCC's, CAV's or Treasury's side makes a comparable statement. The closest thing in any primary document is the Explanatory Memorandum's consumer-awareness observation at [1.3] — 'Some recipients of gift cards are not aware of the expiry dates for gift cards they are given.' — which supports 'consumers are often unaware of expiry dates' but says nothing about search volume or about business owners, and cannot carry the superlative. This is a marketing lede rather than a factual assertion, and should be treated as one.
What was searched (5) https://sprintlaw.com.au/articles/gift-card-expiry-laws-in-australia-legal-requirements-and-best-practices/ — read in full; the sentence is the article's opening line and carries no citation, footnote, dataset or link of any kind grepped the Sprintlaw article for 'ACCC', 'Treasury', 'survey', 'research', 'study', 'data' — no source is attached to the claim https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=gift+cards — no ACCC publication makes any search-volume or 'most misunderstood topic' claim Explanatory Memorandum to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Gift Cards) Bill 2018 (full text search for 'search', 'aware', 'misunderstood') https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/consumers-and-businesses/products-and-services/business-practices/gift-vouchers-and-gift-cards # LegalVision asserted that changes to Australian law came into place on 1 November 2019 to give consumers who hold gift cards greater protections.
2020-01-31 other
1 quote from 1 source On 1 November 2019, changes to the Australian law came into place to provide consumers who hold gift cards with greater protections. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Backed, but the retelling collapses two different statutory dates into one and the distinction is the thing most secondhand summaries drop. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Gift Cards) Act 2018 (No. 133, 2018) was 'Assented to 25 October 2018' and its s 2 commencement table reads '1. The whole of this Act | The day after this Act receives the Royal Assent. | 26 October 2018'. So the Act COMMENCED on 26 October 2018. What happens on 1 November 2019 is APPLICATION: ACL s 302, inserted by item 10 of Schedule 1, confines the amendments to gift cards supplied on or after that day — a deliberate twelve-month-plus lead-in. The Explanatory Memorandum says so in terms at [1.59]: 'The Bill commences the day after Royal Assent and applies to gift cards supplied on or after 1 November 2019.' and gives the reason at [1.60]: 'This provides industry with sufficient time to adjust if necessary while also introducing important protections for consumers in time for the 2019 Christmas period.' The substantive obligations LegalVision describes are ACL ss 99B (three years), 99C (expiry shown prominently), 99D–99E (post-supply fees) and 99F (void terms). The ACCC states the operative date the same way: 'Gift cards purchased on or after 1 November 2019 must be redeemable for at least 3 years after the day they were supplied or purchased.'
The amendments made by Schedule 1 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Gift Cards) Act 2018 apply to gift cards supplied on or after 1 November 2019.Federal Register of Legislation (Commonwealth of Australia) — Competition and Consumer Act 2010, Schedule 2 (Australian Consumer Law), s 302 2026-07-01 What was searched (6) curl of the consolidated ACL to file, grepped 'gift card' — found Division 3A of Part 3-2 (ss 99A–99G) and Chapter 6 Part 5 s 302: https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00109/2026-07-01/2026-07-01/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_4/document_4.html https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2018A00133/2018-10-25/2018-10-25/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_1/document_1.html (Treasury Laws Amendment (Gift Cards) Act 2018 as made, incl. s 2 commencement table) https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=gift+cards https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/advertising-and-promotions/gift-cards-and-discount-vouchers Explanatory Memorandum to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Gift Cards) Bill 2018 (PDF, 64pp, downloaded and text-extracted) https://legalvision.com.au/new-national-gift-card-laws/ (verified the quoted sentence is live) # LegalVision asserts that the gift card changes will not affect gift cards sold before 1 November 2019.
2020-01-31 other
1 quote from 1 source These changes in the law will not affect gift cards sold before 1 November 2019. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Exact statutory match; this is the cut-off doing its work in the other direction. One wording drift worth recording: s 302 turns on gift cards SUPPLIED on or after 1 November 2019, not SOLD. Supply is the wider concept — a card handed over free in a promotion is supplied but not sold — so LegalVision's 'sold before 1 November 2019' understates the reach of the cut-off at the margin, though for retail purchases the two coincide. Also note that a pre-cutoff card is not necessarily unprotected: NSW's own gift card law had already applied to cards sold in NSW from 31 March 2018, so a card sold in NSW between those two dates carried a state three-year minimum.
The amendments made by Schedule 1 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Gift Cards) Act 2018 apply to gift cards supplied on or after 1 November 2019.Federal Register of Legislation (Commonwealth of Australia) — Competition and Consumer Act 2010, Schedule 2 (Australian Consumer Law), s 302 2026-07-01 What was searched (4) ACL s 302 (Chapter 6, Part 5) via curl+grep of the consolidated Act https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2018A00133/2018-10-25/2018-10-25/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_1/document_1.html — Schedule 1 item 10, which inserts s 302 Explanatory Memorandum to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Gift Cards) Bill 2018, 'Application provision' [1.59] https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/advertising-and-promotions/gift-cards-and-discount-vouchers # LegalVision asserts that a business issuing non-compliant gift cards could be fined by the ACCC…
up to $30,000. $6,000 if it is not a company. 2020-01-31 other
1 quote from 1 source If your business issues non-compliant gift cards to consumers, the ACCC could fine you up to $30,000 or $6,000 if you are not a company. A source exists, but not for this checked 2026-08-16
The numbers are exactly right; the actor is wrong, and the ACCC's own number is a different one. $30,000 / $6,000 are the maximum penalties a COURT may order under ACL s 224(3) (item 7 of the table: body corporate $30,000, person other than a body corporate $6,000), and the same figures appear as criminal fines in the strict-liability offences ACL ss 191A–191D, both inserted by the Gift Cards Act 2018. The ACCC cannot impose either: it applies to a court for a pecuniary penalty, and the only amount it can levy directly is an infringement notice, set by CCA s 134C at a much lower level. The Explanatory Memorandum at [1.58]: 'The infringement notice penalty for these provisions for a body corporate is 55 penalty units (currently $11,500) and the penalty for persons other than a body corporate is 11 penalty units (currently $2,420).' Those are 2018 dollar values of a penalty unit and have risen with indexation since, while the $30,000 / $6,000 figures are hard-coded dollar amounts in the ACL and have not moved. So 'the ACCC could fine you up to $30,000' fuses a court maximum with a regulator power — LegalVision's next sentence even separates them ('The ACCC may also issue infringement notices'), which makes the conflation an editing slip rather than a misunderstanding. Ambiguous rather than backed because the primary source does not say what the retelling says it says.
7 section 99B(1), 99C, 99D(1), 99E or 99F(2) $30,000 $6,000Federal Register of Legislation (Commonwealth of Australia) — Competition and Consumer Act 2010, Schedule 2 (Australian Consumer Law), s 224(3) penalty table 2026-07-01 What was searched (5) curl of the consolidated ACL to file, grepped '99B' — ACL s 224(1)(a)(va) and the s 224(3) penalty table, item 7 https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2018A00133/2018-10-25/2018-10-25/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_1/document_1.html — Schedule 1 items 2, 3, 8 and 9, and inserted ACL ss 191A–191D Explanatory Memorandum to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Gift Cards) Bill 2018, para 1.58 (infringement notice penalties) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/advertising-and-promotions/gift-cards-and-discount-vouchers https://legalvision.com.au/new-national-gift-card-laws/ (verified the quoted sentence is live) # Sprintlaw states that policies presented as 'No Refunds', 'Final Sale' or 'No Returns On Sale Items' are fine provided the business does not mislead customers about their legal rights if goods are faulty, unsafe or misdescribed.
2025-06-15 other
1 quote from 1 source as “No Refunds,” “Final Sale,” or “No Returns On Sale Items.” That’s fine-provided you don’t mislead customers about their legal rights if goods are faulty, unsafe, misdescribed, or services don’t meet the guarantees required by the ACL. The primary source says otherwise checked 2026-08-16
Sprintlaw's proviso is not a proviso an unqualified sign can satisfy, and the regulator says so in terms. CAV's reasoning is that the bare wording IS the misleading representation — the sign is unlawful because of what it implies, not because of some further misconduct alongside it. CAV lists 'No refund' and 'No refund on sale items' among signs that are 'against the law', and the ACCC independently names 'no refunds' and 'no refunds or exchanges on sale items' as illegal store policies. What CAV permits is the qualified form only: 'Signs that state ‘No refunds will be given if you have simply changed your mind’ are acceptable.' NOTE THAT SPRINTLAW CONTRADICTS ITSELF within the same article: three paragraphs after saying those wordings are 'fine', it says 'Broad “No Refunds” signs or statements are unlawful if they suggest customers have no rights for faulty goods or services', and its own drafting section prescribes exactly the qualified wording CAV requires ('We don’t offer refunds or exchanges for change-of-mind purchases', 'Sale items are final sale and not eligible for change-of-mind returns'). So the article's advice section is right and its framing sentence is wrong. Narrow carve-out: 'Final Sale' standing alone, without the word refund, is not obviously a representation about statutory remedies and is not on either regulator's list — the contradiction is squarely about 'No Refunds' and 'No Returns On Sale Items'.
Signs that state 'no refunds' are unlawful, because they imply it is not possible to get a refund under any circumstance - even when there is a problem with the goods or service, like a defect or lack of due care and skill.Consumer Affairs Victoria 2023-10-13 What was searched (5) https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/consumers-and-businesses/products-and-services/business-practices/store-policies/no-refund-signs https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/consumers-and-businesses/products-and-services/refunds-repairs-and-returns/sales-seconds-factory-outlets-second-hand/sales-items-refunds https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel ACL s 29(1)(m) via curl+grep of the consolidated Act https://sprintlaw.com.au/articles/creating-a-legally-compliant-no-refunds-policy-in-australia/ (read in full to check the proviso in context) # Sprintlaw states that broad 'No Refunds' signs or statements are unlawful if they suggest customers have no rights for faulty goods or services.
2025-06-15 other
1 quote from 1 source Broad “No Refunds” signs or statements are unlawful if they suggest customers have no rights for faulty goods or services. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Correct restatement, backed by both regulators and by the Act. CAV: 'Generally, consumers have a right to a refund when there is a major problem with something they bought. Stores cannot take away this right by claiming they have a ‘no refund’ policy or displaying a ‘no refund’ sign. This also applies to an online store's refunds and returns policy.' ACCC: 'It’s illegal for businesses to rely on store policies or terms and conditions which deny these rights.' The statutory prohibition is ACL s 29(1)(m): 'make a false or misleading representation concerning the existence, exclusion or effect of any condition, warranty, guarantee, right or remedy'. This is a CORPUS DUPLICATE of the non-excludability rule already established here from the ACCC and CAV. One point of interest for the corpus rather than for this claim: CAV's penalty figures on this same page ('The maximum penalty for a person is $500,000') are lower than ACL s 151(6), which now reads '$2,500,000' for a person other than a body corporate — the same regulator-versus-Act stratification already recorded elsewhere in this sweep.
Businesses must not tell a consumer that a consumer guarantee: does not exist may be excluded or may not have a particular effect.Consumer Affairs Victoria 2023-10-13 What was searched (4) https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/consumers-and-businesses/products-and-services/business-practices/store-policies/no-refund-signs https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel ACL s 29(1)(m) and s 18 via curl+grep of the consolidated Act https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=no+refund+sign # Sprintlaw advises businesses never to state 'No refunds under any circumstances'. Sprintlaw's advice is based on the possibility that the wording 'No refunds under any circumstances' can mislead customers into thinking they have no rights if something is defective or not as described. 2025-06-15 other
1 quote from 1 source Never state “No refunds under any circumstances.” That wording can mislead customers into thinking they have no rights if something is defective or not as described. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Both the advice and the stated reason for it match the regulator almost word for word — Sprintlaw's 'can mislead customers into thinking they have no rights if something is defective or not as described' is CAV's 'they imply it is not possible to get a refund under any circumstance - even when there is a problem with the goods or service, like a defect'. The Act supplies the mechanism: ACL s 29(1)(m) prohibits a false or misleading representation 'concerning the existence, exclusion or effect of any condition, warranty, guarantee, right or remedy'; on CAV's reading the unqualified sign is precisely such a representation. Corpus duplicate again — this is the folklore the corpus already documents from the primary sources. Sprintlaw is not the source of the rule and does not claim to be.
Signs that state 'no refunds' are unlawful, because they imply it is not possible to get a refund under any circumstance - even when there is a problem with the goods or service, like a defect or lack of due care and skill.Consumer Affairs Victoria 2023-10-13 What was searched (4) https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/consumers-and-businesses/products-and-services/business-practices/store-policies/no-refund-signs https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel ACL s 29(1)(m) via curl+grep of the consolidated Act https://sprintlaw.com.au/articles/creating-a-legally-compliant-no-refunds-policy-in-australia/ # LegalVision states that signs on business premises reading 'No refunds on sale items' are…
illegal. prohibited under the ACL. 2016-07-20 medium confidence other
3 quotes from 1 source All business owners must be aware that signs on their premises reading: ‘No refunds on sale items’; or are illegal and prohibited under the ACL. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Both regulators say it, and CAV's list of unlawful signs is almost item-for-item LegalVision's: CAV's page reads 'Generally, these signs are against the law:' followed by 'No refund', 'No refund on sale items', 'No refunds after seven days', 'Refunds on unworn items only', 'We will only exchange, repair or give credit notes'. LegalVision's list is 'No Refunds'; 'No refunds on sale items'; 'Only exchange or credit note only for the return of sale items'. CAV's dedicated sale-items page adds the reason: 'Consumers have the same legal refund rights on sale items as they would have on full-price products.' and 'Stores and sellers cannot take away these rights by claiming they have a ‘no refund’ policy for sale items, or displaying a ‘no refund’ sign.' The ACCC agrees: 'It’s illegal for businesses to rely on store policies or terms and conditions which deny these rights. For example, policies which say ‘no refunds’ or ‘no refunds or exchanges on sale items’.' Statutory hook is ACL s 29(1)(m) — a person must not 'make a false or misleading representation concerning the existence, exclusion or effect of any condition, warranty, guarantee, right or remedy'. ONE QUALIFICATION the retelling drops, and it is the qualification that decides most real cases: the ban is on the UNQUALIFIED sign. CAV: 'Signs that state ‘No refunds will be given if you have simply changed your mind’ are acceptable.' This is a CORPUS DUPLICATE — the sale-items rule is already established from the ACCC and CAV elsewhere in this corpus; LegalVision is a law firm correctly restating it.
Signs that state 'no refunds' are unlawful, because they imply it is not possible to get a refund under any circumstance - even when there is a problem with the goods or service, like a defect or lack of due care and skill.Consumer Affairs Victoria 2023-10-13 What was searched (7) https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/sitemap.xml (crawled ~1,900 URLs, grepped for refund/return/sale) https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/consumers-and-businesses/products-and-services/business-practices/store-policies/no-refund-signs https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/consumers-and-businesses/products-and-services/refunds-repairs-and-returns/sales-seconds-factory-outlets-second-hand/sales-items-refunds https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=no+refund+sign https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel curl of ACL full text, grepped s 29(1)(m) — https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00109/2026-07-01/2026-07-01/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_4/document_4.html https://legalvision.com.au/can-refuse-refund-sale-item/ (verified the quoted list is live) # Sprintlaw asserts that in many cases the cooling-off period for an unsolicited consumer agreement is 10 business days from the day after the consumer receives a copy of the agreement.
2025-02-13 other
1 quote from 1 source In many cases, this is 10 business days from the day after the consumer receives a copy of the agreement. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Backed, and Sprintlaw's hedge ('In many cases') is doing honest work. The quoted text is the notice the ACCC says must appear on the front page of the sales agreement, and it matches Sprintlaw almost word for word. Worth recording the statutory nuance behind the hedge: ACL s 82(3) sets two different start points, not one. For an agreement NOT negotiated by telephone (the door-to-door case) the period runs from 'the day on which the agreement was made' - s 82(3)(a) - so the trigger is the making of the agreement, not receipt of a copy. Receipt of the agreement document is the trigger only for telephone-negotiated agreements, s 82(3)(b). The ACCC's own plain-English page compresses these into 'sign or receive'. The period can also extend to 3 or 6 months under s 82(3)(c)-(d) where the dealer broke the negotiation or documentation rules. Contrast this finding with 66ba11feb3bc in the same brief, where LegalVision drops 'business' entirely - Sprintlaw gets the unit right.
You have a right to cancel this agreement within 10 business days from and including the day after you signed or received this agreement.Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) 2026-08-17 What was searched (3) https://www.accc.gov.au/business/selling-products-and-services/telemarketing-and-door-to-door-sales (curl) grep ACL s 82(3) in local copy of legislation.gov.au C2004A00109 document_4.html corpus grep: raw/task-003-cav-door-to-door-sales.txt, raw/task-005-accc-telemarketing-cons.txt # Sprintlaw asserts that purchases initiated by the consumer on a business's website are not unsolicited sales.
2025-02-13 other
1 quote from 1 source Purchases initiated by the consumer on your website are not unsolicited sales, but you still must comply with the ACL, especially around accurate advertising and refunds. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Backed on the face of the definition, and doubly so. A consumer-initiated website purchase fails s 69(1)(b) - the negotiation channel must be in-person away from the supplier's premises, or telephone, and a website is neither - and it independently fails s 69(1)(c), because the consumer initiated it. The ACCC states the consequence directly: 'This right to a cooling-off period is only for unsolicited consumer agreements, that is products and services sold through methods like telemarketing and door-to-door sales' and 'When a consumer buys a product from a store or website, there is no automatic right to a cooling-off period. The business is not required to give a refund if the consumer simply changes their mind.' Sprintlaw's second half - that the ACL still applies to website sales - is the corpus's general position and is established from the ACCC elsewhere in it. Also worth noting a boundary Sprintlaw does not draw: s 69(1A) says a consumer is not taken to have invited a dealer merely by giving contact details for some other predominant purpose, so a web form that harvests details for a later doorstep or phone approach does not convert that approach into a solicited one.
it is made as a result of negotiations between a dealer and the consumer: (i) in each other’s presence at a place other than the business or trade premises of the supplier of the goods or services; or (ii) by telephone; whether or not they are the only negotiations that precede the making of the agreement; and (c) the consumer did not invite the dealer to come to that place, or to make a telephone call, for the purposes of entering into negotiations relating to the supply of those goods or servicesCompetition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Schedule 2 - Australian Consumer Law, s 69(1)(b)-(c) 2026-07-01 What was searched (3) grep ACL s 69 'Meaning of unsolicited consumer agreement' in local copy of legislation.gov.au C2004A00109 document_4.html https://www.accc.gov.au/business/selling-products-and-services/telemarketing-and-door-to-door-sales (curl) - 'The cooling-off period only applies to unsolicited agreements' corpus grep: raw/task-003-cav-unsolicited-consumer-agreements.txt, raw/task-003-cav-door-to-door-sales.txt # LegalVision asserts that a cooling-off period of 10 days applies when a customer enters into an unsolicited consumer agreement.
2018-12-13 other
1 quote from 1 source If a customer enters into an unsolicited consumer agreement with you, a cooling-off period of 10 days will apply. The primary source says otherwise checked 2026-08-16
The statute says the TENTH BUSINESS DAY, not 10 days. This is a material error, not a rounding: across a public-holiday long weekend the two dates diverge by four calendar days, and this is a page instructing businesses when a consumer's termination right lapses. Every other source in reach uses 'business days'. The ACCC: 'They have 10 business days to do this, starting the first business day after they sign or receive the agreement document.' and the prescribed front-page notice it reproduces reads 'You have a right to cancel this agreement within 10 business days from and including the day after you signed or received this agreement.' (https://www.accc.gov.au/business/selling-products-and-services/telemarketing-and-door-to-door-sales). Consumer Affairs Victoria, already in this corpus at raw/task-003-cav-door-to-door-sales.txt: 'Consumers have 10 business days to reconsider a door-to-door sales agreement... The cooling-off period begins on the first business day after the agreement was made.' Note also that s 82(3) sets the LONGEST of five periods, so 10 business days is only the floor: it stretches to 3 months if ss 73-75 were contravened (permitted hours, disclosing identity, ceasing to negotiate on request) and to 6 months if s 76, Subdivision C or s 86 were contravened. LegalVision's flat '10 days' misses that too.
if the agreement was not negotiated by telephone—the period starting on the day on which the agreement was made and ending at the end of the tenth business day after the day on which the agreement was made;Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Schedule 2 - Australian Consumer Law, s 82(3)(a) 2026-07-01 What was searched (4) curl of Competition and Consumer Act 2010 Sch 2 (ACL) to file, grep for 'termination period' and s 82 - https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00109/2026-07-01/2026-07-01/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_4/document_4.html https://www.accc.gov.au/business/selling-products-and-services/telemarketing-and-door-to-door-sales (curl) https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=cooling%20off%20unsolicited%20consumer%20agreement corpus grep: raw/task-003-cav-door-to-door-sales.txt, raw/task-005-accc-telemarketing-cons.txt, raw/task-003-cav-unsolicited-consumer-agreements.txt, raw/task-003-lv-uca.txt # LegalVision asserts that the ACCC can…
investigate complaints about unsolicited consumer agreements. issue fines if the ACCC agrees with the customer's complaint about unsolicited consumer agreements. 2018-12-13 other
1 quote from 1 source The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) can investigate complaints and issue fines if they agree with the customer's complaint. A source exists, but not for this checked 2026-08-16
One corpus claim, two halves, and the primary sources split on them - hence ambiguous rather than a clean call. INVESTIGATE half: backed. The same ACCC page says 'We can investigate if a business breaks consumer law when using telemarketing or door-to-door sales. We may take compliance or enforcement action.' FINES half: half-right on mechanism, wrong on trigger. The ACCC can issue an infringement notice for these provisions - CCA s 134A(1)-(2): 'If the Commission has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has contravened an infringement notice provision, the Commission may issue an infringement notice to the person... (d) a provision of Division 2 of Part 3-2 (other than section 85)' - and Division 2 of Part 3-2 is the unsolicited consumer agreements division. But the larger penalties are not the ACCC's to impose: ACL s 224(1) provides that where 'a court is satisfied that a person... has contravened... (iv) a provision (other than section 85) of Division 2 of Part 3-2 (which is about unsolicited consumer agreements)... the court may order the person to pay to the Commonwealth, State or Territory, as the case may be, such pecuniary penalty... as the court determines to be appropriate.' And LegalVision's stated trigger - 'if they agree with the customer's complaint' - is contradicted twice over: the ACCC says flatly that it does not resolve individual complaints, and the statutory trigger in s 134A is the Commission's reasonable grounds to believe a provision was contravened, not its agreement with a complainant.
We don’t resolve individual complaints about telemarketing and door-to-door sales.Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) 2026-08-17 What was searched (4) https://www.accc.gov.au/business/selling-products-and-services/telemarketing-and-door-to-door-sales - 'What the ACCC does' / 'What the ACCC can't do' blocks (curl) grep ACL s 224 'Pecuniary penalties' in local copy of legislation.gov.au C2004A00109 document_4.html grep CCA Part XI Division 5 s 134A 'Issuing an infringement notice' in raw/doc_3.html (Competition and Consumer Act 2010 body) corpus grep: raw/task-000-leg-cca-latest.txt (TOC), raw/task-003-lv-uca.txt # LegalVision asserts about unsolicited consumer agreements that a door-to-door salesperson who sees a Do Not Knock sign at a person's home must leave the premises immediately.
2018-12-13 other
1 quote from 1 source If you are a door-to-door salesperson and you see a sign at a person's home that says "Do Not Knock", you must leave the premises immediately. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Backed, and unusually well backed for a claim of this shape - it is court-tested, not just regulator opinion. The mechanism is two-step. ACL s 75(1) requires that a dealer 'must leave the premises immediately on the request of: (a) the occupier of the premises...'; the ACCC's position, quoted above, is that a Do Not Knock sign IS that request. The Federal Court agreed: in the ACCC's 13 December 2013 media release on AGL South Australia and CPM Australia, 'Justice Middleton found that the do not knock sign conveyed a clear and unambiguous request to leave the premises without knocking on the consumer's door' (https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/court-imposes-penalties-for-ignoring-do-not-knock-sign), and the two respondents paid $60,000 in penalties. One consequence LegalVision omits: under s 75(2), once such a request is made the dealer 'must not contact the prospective consumer for the purpose of negotiating an unsolicited consumer agreement... for at least 30 days'.
Salespeople must treat that sign the same as a specific request from a consumer to leave.Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) 2026-08-17 What was searched (5) https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=do%20not%20knock%20sign https://www.accc.gov.au/business/selling-products-and-services/telemarketing-and-door-to-door-sales (curl) https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/court-imposes-penalties-for-ignoring-do-not-knock-sign (curl) grep ACL s 75 'Ceasing to negotiate on request' in local copy of legislation.gov.au C2004A00109 document_4.html corpus grep: raw/task-003-cav-door-to-door-sales.txt ('Do not knock' sticker section), raw/task-005-accc-telemarketing-cons.txt # A Good Guys salesperson told CHOICE's mystery shoppers that…
under the Australian Consumer Law the TV would be covered for two years. after the two years there is nothing the store can do. 2023-12-13 other
2 quotes from 1 source Just like many JB Hi-Fi staff, many of those at The Good Guys seemed to think the retailer's obligation to consumers ended at the two-year mark. Some of their responses included: "With the ACL, depending on how much you spend, you get covered for a certain period of time. With this TV … you'd be covered for two years. So if something goes wrong in the first year, Samsung would fix [it] and if something went wrong in the second year, we would fix it. After that, there's nothing we can do." The primary source says otherwise checked 2026-08-16
All five claims are one idea, retold by salespeople at two retailers, and the regulator contradicts it on both halves. On the fixed two-year period: the same guidance says 'However, any warranty, whether express or manufacturer, will only ever complement the consumer guarantees under the ACL and cannot modify or remove them. This means a reasonable consumer can expect a good to last longer than the supplier or manufacturer's warranty period, depending on the circumstances.' Its worked example is directly on point: a laptop with a 12-month manufacturer's warranty that fails at 18 months is likely not of acceptable quality, 'despite the manufacturer's warranty having expired'. On 'after that, there's nothing we can do': the ACCC's warranties page is explicit - 'Warranties against defects usually apply for a set amount of time. After the warranty expires, the consumer guarantee of acceptable quality usually still applies. This means that if there's a problem with a product, the consumer likely still has a right to a repair, refund or replacement, even after the warranty period.' (https://www.accc.gov.au/business/selling-products-and-services/warranties). The JB Hi-Fi framing under b6f68e356ece carries a second, distinct error: it describes the ACL entitlement as an extra year the retailer voluntarily bolts onto the manufacturer's warranty. Two years is in fact JB Hi-Fi's and The Good Guys' own VOLUNTARY warranty period for a TV in that price band, not an ACL period at all - the ACL sets no fixed period, only a reasonable one turning on s 54(3) factors (nature of the good, price, statements made). PROVENANCE: the claims are salespeople's statements as recorded by CHOICE's 2022 mystery shop, and CHOICE publishes them as errors it found, not as its own position - it reports that 83% of the JB Hi-Fi stores called and 69% of the Harvey Norman stores called 'misrepresented our consumer rights'. So there is no conflict between CHOICE and the regulator here; the contradicted party is the retail floor staff. This corpus already holds the ACCC durability landing page (raw/task-007-accc-durability-guidance.txt) but NOT the PDF body, which is where the operative text lives - the PDF was fetched and extracted fresh for this trace.
Consumer guarantees under the ACL apply for a reasonable time and in addition to any warranties that manufacturers and/or suppliers provide for a good. This means consumer guarantees may continue to apply during the period of those warranties and after those warranties expire.ACCC and the state and territory consumer protection agencies (Guidance on the consumer guarantee: Acceptable quality and the meaning of 'durability') 2022-11-02 What was searched (6) https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=durability%20acceptable%20quality https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/acl-consumer-guarantee-guidance-durability.pdf (downloaded, pdftotext -layout, quotes verified against the two-column extraction) https://www.accc.gov.au/about-us/publications/guidance-on-the-consumer-guarantee-as-to-acceptable-quality-and-durability https://www.accc.gov.au/business/selling-products-and-services/warranties (curl) grep ACL Sch 2 s 54 / s 271 in local copy of legislation.gov.au C2004A00109 document_4.html corpus grep: raw/task-007-accc-durability-guidance.txt, raw/task-007-choice-extended-warranty-mystery-shop.txt, raw/traceD-accc-warranties.txt # JB Hi-Fi employees told CHOICE's mystery shoppers that…
the manufacturer gives one year of warranty. JB Hi-Fi gives one extra year by consumer law, after which there is no coverage. 2023-12-13 other
1 quote from 1 source Some employees seemed to think the extra year of voluntary warranty represented the extent of JB Hi-Fi's responsibility, telling us that "the manufacturer gives one year warranty and then JB gives one extra year by consumer law" and that after that period "there's no coverage, you go by yourself to a TV mechanic". The primary source says otherwise checked 2026-08-16
All five claims are one idea, retold by salespeople at two retailers, and the regulator contradicts it on both halves. On the fixed two-year period: the same guidance says 'However, any warranty, whether express or manufacturer, will only ever complement the consumer guarantees under the ACL and cannot modify or remove them. This means a reasonable consumer can expect a good to last longer than the supplier or manufacturer's warranty period, depending on the circumstances.' Its worked example is directly on point: a laptop with a 12-month manufacturer's warranty that fails at 18 months is likely not of acceptable quality, 'despite the manufacturer's warranty having expired'. On 'after that, there's nothing we can do': the ACCC's warranties page is explicit - 'Warranties against defects usually apply for a set amount of time. After the warranty expires, the consumer guarantee of acceptable quality usually still applies. This means that if there's a problem with a product, the consumer likely still has a right to a repair, refund or replacement, even after the warranty period.' (https://www.accc.gov.au/business/selling-products-and-services/warranties). The JB Hi-Fi framing under b6f68e356ece carries a second, distinct error: it describes the ACL entitlement as an extra year the retailer voluntarily bolts onto the manufacturer's warranty. Two years is in fact JB Hi-Fi's and The Good Guys' own VOLUNTARY warranty period for a TV in that price band, not an ACL period at all - the ACL sets no fixed period, only a reasonable one turning on s 54(3) factors (nature of the good, price, statements made). PROVENANCE: the claims are salespeople's statements as recorded by CHOICE's 2022 mystery shop, and CHOICE publishes them as errors it found, not as its own position - it reports that 83% of the JB Hi-Fi stores called and 69% of the Harvey Norman stores called 'misrepresented our consumer rights'. So there is no conflict between CHOICE and the regulator here; the contradicted party is the retail floor staff. This corpus already holds the ACCC durability landing page (raw/task-007-accc-durability-guidance.txt) but NOT the PDF body, which is where the operative text lives - the PDF was fetched and extracted fresh for this trace.
Consumer guarantees under the ACL apply for a reasonable time and in addition to any warranties that manufacturers and/or suppliers provide for a good. This means consumer guarantees may continue to apply during the period of those warranties and after those warranties expire.ACCC and the state and territory consumer protection agencies (Guidance on the consumer guarantee: Acceptable quality and the meaning of 'durability') 2022-11-02 What was searched (6) https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=durability%20acceptable%20quality https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/acl-consumer-guarantee-guidance-durability.pdf (downloaded, pdftotext -layout, quotes verified against the two-column extraction) https://www.accc.gov.au/about-us/publications/guidance-on-the-consumer-guarantee-as-to-acceptable-quality-and-durability https://www.accc.gov.au/business/selling-products-and-services/warranties (curl) grep ACL Sch 2 s 54 / s 271 in local copy of legislation.gov.au C2004A00109 document_4.html corpus grep: raw/task-007-accc-durability-guidance.txt, raw/task-007-choice-extended-warranty-mystery-shop.txt, raw/traceD-accc-warranties.txt # A Good Guys salesperson told CHOICE's mystery shoppers that under consumer law the customer has two years.
2023-12-13 other
2 quotes from 1 source Just like many JB Hi-Fi staff, many of those at The Good Guys seemed to think the retailer's obligation to consumers ended at the two-year mark. Some of their responses included: "The manufacturer says you've only got one year's warranty on this, but under consumer law you've actually got two years." The primary source says otherwise checked 2026-08-16
All five claims are one idea, retold by salespeople at two retailers, and the regulator contradicts it on both halves. On the fixed two-year period: the same guidance says 'However, any warranty, whether express or manufacturer, will only ever complement the consumer guarantees under the ACL and cannot modify or remove them. This means a reasonable consumer can expect a good to last longer than the supplier or manufacturer's warranty period, depending on the circumstances.' Its worked example is directly on point: a laptop with a 12-month manufacturer's warranty that fails at 18 months is likely not of acceptable quality, 'despite the manufacturer's warranty having expired'. On 'after that, there's nothing we can do': the ACCC's warranties page is explicit - 'Warranties against defects usually apply for a set amount of time. After the warranty expires, the consumer guarantee of acceptable quality usually still applies. This means that if there's a problem with a product, the consumer likely still has a right to a repair, refund or replacement, even after the warranty period.' (https://www.accc.gov.au/business/selling-products-and-services/warranties). The JB Hi-Fi framing under b6f68e356ece carries a second, distinct error: it describes the ACL entitlement as an extra year the retailer voluntarily bolts onto the manufacturer's warranty. Two years is in fact JB Hi-Fi's and The Good Guys' own VOLUNTARY warranty period for a TV in that price band, not an ACL period at all - the ACL sets no fixed period, only a reasonable one turning on s 54(3) factors (nature of the good, price, statements made). PROVENANCE: the claims are salespeople's statements as recorded by CHOICE's 2022 mystery shop, and CHOICE publishes them as errors it found, not as its own position - it reports that 83% of the JB Hi-Fi stores called and 69% of the Harvey Norman stores called 'misrepresented our consumer rights'. So there is no conflict between CHOICE and the regulator here; the contradicted party is the retail floor staff. This corpus already holds the ACCC durability landing page (raw/task-007-accc-durability-guidance.txt) but NOT the PDF body, which is where the operative text lives - the PDF was fetched and extracted fresh for this trace.
Consumer guarantees under the ACL apply for a reasonable time and in addition to any warranties that manufacturers and/or suppliers provide for a good. This means consumer guarantees may continue to apply during the period of those warranties and after those warranties expire.ACCC and the state and territory consumer protection agencies (Guidance on the consumer guarantee: Acceptable quality and the meaning of 'durability') 2022-11-02 What was searched (6) https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=durability%20acceptable%20quality https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/acl-consumer-guarantee-guidance-durability.pdf (downloaded, pdftotext -layout, quotes verified against the two-column extraction) https://www.accc.gov.au/about-us/publications/guidance-on-the-consumer-guarantee-as-to-acceptable-quality-and-durability https://www.accc.gov.au/business/selling-products-and-services/warranties (curl) grep ACL Sch 2 s 54 / s 271 in local copy of legislation.gov.au C2004A00109 document_4.html corpus grep: raw/task-007-accc-durability-guidance.txt, raw/task-007-choice-extended-warranty-mystery-shop.txt, raw/traceD-accc-warranties.txt # Sprintlaw states that a common misconception is that overseas purchases can be sold as-is with limited obligations.
2026-02-04 other
1 quote from 1 source A common misconception is that parallel imported products can be sold “as-is” with limited obligations. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
DUPLICATE: the corpus already carries the ACCC business-side page (raw/task-003-accc-selling-parallel-imports.txt). The quoted lead-in is followed on the page by the list 'meeting consumers' basic rights known as consumer guarantees and giving consumers a repair, replacement or refund if there is a problem with the product', 'being truthful and accurate about the product and its pricing', 'making sure the product is safe'. The same page also states, more directly: 'If there is a consumer guarantees problem with the parallel import product, the seller is responsible for providing a solution to the consumer.' Sprintlaw is correctly restating the regulator.
Sellers of parallel imports have all the usual responsibilities, including:Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) 2026-08-17 What was searched (3) https://www.accc.gov.au/business/selling-products-and-services/selling-parallel-imports (curl) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/buying-parallel-imports (curl) corpus grep 'parallel import' across raw/*.txt # Sprintlaw states that if something goes wrong with a parallel import, a business's customers will typically come to the business rather than the overseas supplier or the brand owner.
2026-02-04 other
2 quotes from 1 source That means if something goes wrong, your customers will typically come to not the overseas supplier, and not the brand owner. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
DUPLICATE and a notably strong match: the ACCC says the seller cannot even redirect the consumer to the manufacturer or a local authorised seller, which is exactly Sprintlaw's point that customers come to the business rather than the overseas supplier or brand owner. Already in the corpus as raw/task-003-accc-selling-parallel-imports.txt and raw/task-006-www-accc-gov-au-consumers-buying-products-and-services-buying-parallel-imports.txt.
If there is a consumer guarantees problem with the parallel import product, the seller is responsible for providing a solution to the consumer. They can’t refuse to help the consumer or tell them to contact the manufacturer or any local authorised sellers of the product.Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) 2026-08-17 What was searched (3) https://www.accc.gov.au/business/selling-products-and-services/selling-parallel-imports (curl) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/buying-parallel-imports (curl) corpus grep 'refuse to help' across raw/*.txt # LegalVision states that if there is a local manufacturer of the same product they will not be responsible for fixing a parallel-imported product or offering any product support.
2018-10-18 other
1 quote from 1 source If there is a local manufacturer of the same product, they will not be responsible for fixing your product or offering you any product support. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
DUPLICATE / our bookkeeping artefact: the corpus already holds this ACCC page (raw/task-006-www-accc-gov-au-consumers-buying-products-and-services-buying-parallel-imports.txt), so the primary source was already captured alongside the LegalVision restatement. The same page carries the flat summary bullet 'Local manufacturers are not responsible for problems with parallel imports.' One nuance LegalVision drops: the ACCC's statement is conditional - 'if the terms of the warranty exclude them' - so the local manufacturer's non-liability follows from the warranty's own terms rather than being automatic. Note also that this is about the LOCAL manufacturer only; ACL s 7(1)(e) makes 'a person who imports goods into Australia' a manufacturer for ACL purposes where 'at the time of the importation, the manufacturer of the goods does not have a place of business in Australia', so the parallel importer itself can carry manufacturer-level obligations. LegalVision's claim is directionally correct and the ACCC says the same thing.
Manufacturers and their local authorised sellers do not have to honour warranties or provide support or spare parts under warranties for parallel imports, if the terms of the warranty exclude them.Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) 2026-08-17 What was searched (5) https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=parallel%20imports https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/buying-parallel-imports (curl, server-rendered, quotable) https://www.accc.gov.au/business/selling-products-and-services/selling-parallel-imports (curl) grep ACL Sch 2 s 7 'Meaning of manufacturer' in local copy of legislation.gov.au C2004A00109 document_4.html corpus grep: raw/task-006-www-accc-gov-au-consumers-buying-products-and-services-buying-parallel-imports.txt, raw/task-003-accc-selling-parallel-imports.txt, raw/task-001-accc-parallel-imports.txt # LegalVision states that an Australian consumer will probably have difficulty enforcing consumer guarantee rights against a seller located overseas. LegalVision states that the seller located overseas may be outside the Australian courts' jurisdiction. 2018-10-18 other
1 quote from 1 source Despite the availability of the ACL consumer guarantees, an Australian consumer will probably have difficulty enforcing these rights against a seller located overseas. This is because the seller may be outside the Australian courts’ jurisdiction. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Backed in substance by the regulator. One qualification worth recording: the ACCC frames it as 'practical and legal difficulties', which is weaker and broader than LegalVision's stated mechanism ('the seller may be outside the Australian courts' jurisdiction'). The ACCC does not assert the jurisdictional point, and the CCA has extraterritorial reach in some cases, so the LegalVision reason is a gloss on the regulator's more cautious wording rather than a quotation of it. The two claims under this id are one idea (the difficulty, and the reason given for it) and are grouped.
if the seller is based overseas, there may be practical and legal difficulties in enforcing their rights against an overseas business.Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) 2026-08-17 What was searched (4) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/buying-parallel-imports (curl) https://www.accc.gov.au/business/selling-products-and-services/selling-parallel-imports (curl) https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=parallel%20imports corpus grep for 'overseas' across raw/task-00*-accc-*.txt (incl. task-000-accc-buying-online.txt) # Cars24 states that every vehicle it sells comes with a…
complimentary 3-month warranty 30-Day Return Guarantee 2026-08-16 other
1 quote from 1 source That's why every vehicle comes with a complimentary 3-month warranty and 30-Day Return Guarantee, giving you added reassurance from day one. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
The primary source for a trader's own offer is the trader's own page, and it says exactly this (accessed 17 Aug 2026; the page carries no publication date). Both halves of the claim - the 3-month warranty and the 30-Day Return Guarantee - come from this one sentence. Context the corpus already establishes: a voluntary warranty of this kind is a warranty against defects that sits ON TOP of the consumer guarantees and cannot reduce them ('Warranties can't replace, change or take away a consumer's basic rights'), and used cars bought from a dealer are covered by the guarantees. A 3-month warranty is not the limit of a buyer's rights.
That's why every vehicle comes with a complimentary 3-month warranty and 30-Day Return Guarantee, giving you added reassurance from day one.Cars24 Australia 2026-08-17 What was searched (2) https://www.cars24.com.au/warranty/ (fetched; the sentence confirmed verbatim on the operator's own page) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/warranties # Cars24 states that regular servicing of the vehicle is required under its cover.
2026-08-16 other
1 quote from 1 source Regular servicing of your vehicle is required Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Backed on the operator's own page; the full line continues 'see Terms & Conditions for more information' and links to a Google Drive PDF. A servicing condition is a lawful warranty term, and the ACCC gives this exact scenario: 'A warranty requires the consumer to have a product serviced once a year. If the consumer doesn't do this they can no longer make a claim under the warranty ... But in this situation, the consumer still has their basic consumer guarantee rights.' So the condition limits the warranty, not the guarantees.
Regular servicing of your vehicle is requiredCars24 Australia 2026-08-17 What was searched (2) https://www.cars24.com.au/warranty/ (fetched; confirmed verbatim in the 'Comprehensive coverage' list) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/warranties # Cars24 describes its cover as giving unlimited claims up to the vehicle value at time of claim.
2026-08-16 medium confidence other
1 quote from 1 source Unlimited claims up to the vehicle value at time of claim Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Backed on the operator's own page. Worth noting a small internal inconsistency in how the page states it: the feature strip says 'Unlimited claims up to the vehicle value at time of claim' while the 3-month warranty block says 'Unlimited claims, up to value of vehicle at time of claim in each claim' - a per-claim cap in one telling, an aggregate-sounding cap in the other. The substantive terms sit in a linked Terms & Conditions PDF hosted on Google Drive, not on the page itself.
Unlimited claims up to the vehicle value at time of claimCars24 Australia 2026-08-17 What was searched (1) https://www.cars24.com.au/warranty/ (fetched; confirmed verbatim, and appears twice on the page in two forms) # Sprintlaw states that the civil jurisdiction of the Magistrates' Court of Victoria commonly covers claims up to $100,000.
2025-10-01 other
1 quote from 1 source the civil jurisdiction of the Magistrates’ Court commonly covers claims up to $100,000 Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Backed by the statute. s 100(1)(a) gives the Court jurisdiction 'to hear and determine any cause of action for damages or a debt or a liquidated demand if the amount claimed is within the jurisdictional limit', and s 3(1) fixes that limit at $100,000. The Court says the same on its own site: 'The Magistrates' Court can hear civil disputes up to the value of $100,000.' Sprintlaw's hedge 'commonly covers' is apt - s 100(1)(c) lets the Court hear larger claims with the written consent of the parties, so $100,000 is the default ceiling, not an absolute one.
jurisdictional limit in a civil proceeding means $100 000;Magistrates' Court Act 1989 (Vic), s 3(1) (authorised version, Victorian Chief Parliamentary Counsel) 2026-07-01 What was searched (5) https://sprintlaw.com.au/articles/how-to-use-small-claims-court-in-victoria-for-enforcing-business-debts/ (the retelling) https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/in-force/acts/magistrates-court-act-1989 -> version 238 -> https://content.legislation.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2026-07/89-51aa238-authorised.pdf (downloaded and searched for 'jurisdictional limit') https://www.mcv.vic.gov.au/civil-matters https://www.mcv.vic.gov.au/civil-matters/starting-civil-matter http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/mca1989206/s100.html (Cloudflare 403 - unusable) # Sprintlaw states that, for small claims, a VCAT order for payment usually needs to be certified in a court before court enforcement processes can be used.
2025-10-01 other
1 quote from 1 source if you obtain a VCAT order for payment, you’ll usually need to have that order certified in a court before you can use court enforcement processes. A source exists, but not for this checked 2026-08-16
A source exists but does not say what the retelling says, and the retelling names a superseded mechanism. Current s 121 requires no certification: 'A person in whose favour a monetary order is made may enforce the order in - (a) if the amount owing under the order is within the jurisdictional limit of the Magistrates' Court, the Magistrates' Court; or (b) otherwise, either the County Court or the Supreme Court', and the order is then deemed an order of that court by operation of s 121(2). The file-a-certified-copy procedure Sprintlaw describes is the pre-2018 s 121, substituted by s 68 of the Justice Legislation Amendment (Access to Justice) Act 2018 and preserved only for orders made before commencement (VCAT Act s 173). The SUBSTANCE - that there is an intermediate step at the court before enforcement - survives, but it is recording, not certification: the Magistrates' Court says 'Contact VCAT and ask for a copy of the monetary order to be recorded at the Magistrates' Court', then 'Once an order is recorded, an application for enforcement can be made'. Marked ambiguous rather than contradicted because the practical requirement is real even though the named legal mechanism is out of date.
For the purposes of the enforcement of a monetary order under subsection (1), the order is taken to be an order of the court in which it is to be enforced.Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic), s 121 (authorised version, Victorian Chief Parliamentary Counsel) 2026-07-01 What was searched (5) https://sprintlaw.com.au/articles/how-to-use-small-claims-court-in-victoria-for-enforcing-business-debts/ (the retelling) https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/in-force/acts/victorian-civil-and-administrative-tribunal-act-1998 -> version 145 -> https://content.legislation.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2026-07/98-53aa145-authorised.pdf (downloaded; searched 'Enforcement of order', 'certified copy', ss 121-122) https://www.vcat.vic.gov.au/the-vcat-process/decisions/enforce-a-vcat-order https://www.mcv.vic.gov.au/civil-matters/enforcement-civil-debt https://www.mcv.vic.gov.au/civil-matters/enforcement-civil-debt/recording-vcat-monetary-order # Sprintlaw states that many simple unpaid business-to-business invoices fall outside small claims. Sprintlaw states that a dispute sitting squarely in small claims' consumer/trader or fair trading jurisdiction does not fall outside small claims. 2025-10-01 other
1 quote from 1 source Many simple unpaid B2B invoices fall outside VCAT unless the dispute sits squarely in its consumer/trader or fair trading jurisdiction. A source exists, but not for this checked 2026-08-16
A source exists but it does not support the general proposition, so this is ambiguous rather than backed. The statutory gateway in s 182(1) is drawn around 'a purchaser or possible purchaser' and 'a supplier or possible supplier' - it is NOT limited to consumers, so an unpaid invoice for a supply of goods or services between two businesses can sit inside it. What the Act does do is treat business-to-business matters differently in degree, not in kind: s 185(4) defines a 'trader-trader dispute' and caps VCAT's extra fairness powers at claims of $10,000 or less, and s 183 defines a 'small claim' as one not exceeding $15,000. So Sprintlaw's second half (a dispute squarely in the consumer/trader jurisdiction is inside VCAT) is simply s 182 restated, while its first half (many simple B2B invoices fall outside) is an assertion no source I reached states. Not resolved here, per the standing note on this corpus: the ACCC says 'Each state has a small claims court or tribunal' while Sprintlaw says Victoria has no separate 'Small Claims Court'. Both are defensible - the ACL and Fair Trading Act does define a 'small claim' (s 183) but assigns it to VCAT, and there is no separately constituted small claims court in Victoria. A reader's forum question is not answered here.
a consumer and trader dispute is a dispute or claim arising between a purchaser or possible purchaser of goods or services and a supplier or possible supplier of goods or services in relation to a supply or possible supply of goods or services.Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012 (Vic), s 182(1) (authorised version, Victorian Chief Parliamentary Counsel) 2026-03-01 What was searched (4) https://sprintlaw.com.au/articles/how-to-use-small-claims-court-in-victoria-for-enforcing-business-debts/ (the retelling; both halves of the sentence) https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/in-force/acts/australian-consumer-law-and-fair-trading-act-2012 -> version 038 -> https://content.legislation.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2026-03/12-21aa038-authorised.pdf (downloaded; read Chapter 7, ss 182-187) https://www.vcat.vic.gov.au/the-vcat-process/decisions/enforce-a-vcat-order https://www.vcat.vic.gov.au/ # BIG W's returns page lists e-gift cards among the items that are not eligible for change of mind returns.
2026-08-16 medium confidence other
2 quotes from 1 source The following items are not eligible for change of mind returns: e-gift cards Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Corpus duplicate of the change-of-mind rule already established here from the ACCC. The ACCC's own list of lawful change-of-mind conditions includes 'excluding specific products'. The exclusion is lawful because a change-of-mind return is not a consumer-guarantee remedy at all; it would NOT be lawful to exclude e-gift cards from a faulty-goods remedy, and the ACCC's separate 'no refunds on sale items' line shows where that boundary bites.
Under consumer law, businesses don’t have to offer refunds and replacements for changes of mind. So a business can put conditions on these change of mind policies, such as:Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) 2026-07-12 What was searched (3) https://www.bigw.com.au/returns (fetched; the exclusion list and 'e-gift cards' confirmed verbatim) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/contacting-a-business-to-fix-a-problem https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel # Steam states that digital products (content and services) are licensed, not sold. Steam states that the licence for digital products (content and services) confers no title or ownership in those digital products. 2024-05-31 medium confidence other
1 quote from 1 source The popular US-based video game platform Steam makes a similar claim, saying its content and services “are licensed, not sold. Your license confers no title or ownership in the content and services”. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Backed by the operator's own document, which is the primary source here. Two small drifts in the retelling: CHOICE lowercases 'content and services' where the agreement capitalises the defined terms, and the agreement was last updated 20 April 2026 ('This Agreement was last updated on April 20, 2026'). Worth flagging for the reader but not resolved here: ACL s 64 makes any term that purports to exclude, restrict or modify the consumer guarantees void for supplies to Australian consumers, so a licence characterisation does not by itself displace the guarantees.
The Content and Services are licensed, not sold. Your license confers no title or ownership in the Content and Services.Valve Corporation (Steam Subscriber Agreement) 2026-04-20 What was searched (3) https://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/ (fetched; passage located in the Licence section) https://www.choice.com.au/electronics-and-technology/home-entertainment/home-entertainment-networks/articles/digital-goods-that-disappear (the retelling) ACL s 64 checked in https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00109/2026-07-01/2026-07-01/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_4/document_4.html # Kmart states that it will accept a product return under consumer guarantees where the product has been recalled.
2025-10-01 medium confidence other
2 quotes from 1 source Kmart will accept product returns under consumer guarantees where: The product has been recalled Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Backed, and correctly stated by the retailer. The legal route is ACL s 54(2)(d) - goods must be 'safe' to be of acceptable quality - so a recalled unsafe product fails the guarantee, which is why the ACCC says an unsafe product is a major failure and the consumer may choose refund or replacement. Corpus duplicate of the acceptable-quality/safety material already established here.
If you own a recalled product, stop using it and contact the supplier for a repair, replacement or refund.ACCC Product Safety Australia 2024-09-18 What was searched (4) https://www.kmart.com.au/consumer-guarantee-returns-policy/ (fetched; 'Kmart will accept product returns under consumer guarantees where' and the 'The product has been recalled' bullet confirmed verbatim) https://www.productsafety.gov.au/business/understand-product-safety-rules/product-safety-as-a-consumer-guarantee https://www.productsafety.gov.au/consumers/respond-to-recalls-and-unsafe-products ACL s 54(2)(d) in https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00109/2026-07-01/2026-07-01/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_4/document_4.html # CHOICE states that the standard repair, replace or refund provisions apply in relation to recalls. CHOICE states that which repair, replace or refund provision a consumer gets depends on the risk analysis of the recall. 2022-03-08 other
1 quote from 1 source The standard repair, replace or refund provisions apply in relation to recalls. Which one you get depends on the risk analysis of the recall, according to the ACCC. A source exists, but not for this checked 2026-08-16
A source exists but does not say what the retelling says. CHOICE attributes 'which one you get depends on the risk analysis of the recall' to the ACCC; the ACCC's current recall guidance ('Choose a remedy') nowhere ties the remedy to the risk assessment. What it does say is that the supplier selects a remedy that removes the hazard, that the remedy must be 'consistent with Australian Consumer Law remedies', and - cutting the other way from the retelling - that where the goods are unsafe and so a major failure, 'consumers can reject the goods and ask for a replacement or refund' and 'the supplier must give a full refund if the consumer chooses it and cannot scale down the refund'. On the ACCC's own account the consumer's choice, not the risk analysis, decides for unsafe goods. Risk assessment in the guidance drives whether and how to recall, not which remedy the consumer gets.
Offering a remedy under a recall does not remove the consumer’s rights to an alternative remedy under the consumer guarantees in the Australian Consumer Law.ACCC Product Safety Australia 2026-07-17 What was searched (8) https://www.choice.com.au/shopping/consumer-rights-and-advice/your-rights/articles/product-recalls-and-safety (attributes this to the ACCC; no link given) https://www.productsafety.gov.au/business/recall-an-unsafe-product/choose-a-remedy (the ACCC's actual guidance on selecting a recall remedy - read in full) https://www.productsafety.gov.au/business/understand-product-safety-rules/product-safety-as-a-consumer-guarantee https://www.productsafety.gov.au/consumers/respond-to-recalls-and-unsafe-products https://www.productsafety.gov.au/business/recall-an-unsafe-product https://www.productsafety.gov.au/business/recall-an-unsafe-product/recall-tools-and-guidelines https://www.productsafety.gov.au/about-us/publications/conducting-a-consumer-product-safety-recall-a-guideline-for-suppliers https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=product%20recall%20refund%20repair%20replace # CHOICE states that consumer guarantees last for a reasonable time after purchase. Manufacturer's warranties are time-limited. 2024-06-26 other
1 quote from 1 source Unlike time-limited manufacturer’s warranties, consumer guarantees last for a “reasonable time” after purchase. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Corpus duplicate - the guarantees-versus-warranties distinction is already established in this corpus from the ACCC. Both halves of the CHOICE sentence are backed on the same page: the ACCC says consumer rights 'continue for a reasonable time depending on the product or service', and that 'Warranties against defects usually apply for a set amount of time. After the warranty expires, the consumer guarantee of acceptable quality usually still applies.'
Warranties can’t replace, change or take away a consumer’s basic rights. These basic rights can last longer than a business’s warranty.Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) 2026-06-28 What was searched (4) https://www.choice.com.au/shopping/consumer-rights-and-advice/your-rights/buying-guides/do-you-need-an-extended-warranty (the retelling) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/warranties https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/consumer-rights-and-guarantees ACCC 'Guidance on the consumer guarantee: acceptable quality and durability' (already in corpus) # CHOICE states that a reasonable time depends on the type of product, how much was paid, and how long a regular customer would expect that item to last.
2024-06-26 other
1 quote from 1 source A “reasonable time” depends on the type of product, how much you paid, and how long a regular customer would expect that item to last. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Backed by the statute directly. s 54(2) requires the goods to be 'durable ... as a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the state and condition of the goods ... would regard as acceptable', judged against the s 54(3) matters - which are exactly the type of product and the price CHOICE names. The ACCC's page adds the plain-English version: 'There are no set rules for deciding whether a product is of acceptable quality, or how long a product should last for.' The only drift is that CHOICE lists three factors where s 54(3) lists five (statements on packaging and representations by the supplier also count).
The matters for the purposes of subsection (2) are: (a) the nature of the goods; and (b) the price of the goods (if relevant); and (c) any statements made about the goods on any packaging or label on the goods; and (d) any representation made about the goods by the supplier or manufacturer of the goods; and (e) any other relevant circumstances relating to the supply of the goods.Australian Consumer Law (Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Sch 2), s 54(3) 2026-07-01 What was searched (3) https://www.choice.com.au/shopping/consumer-rights-and-advice/your-rights/buying-guides/do-you-need-an-extended-warranty (the retelling) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/consumer-rights-and-guarantees ACL s 54(2)-(3) in https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00109/2026-07-01/2026-07-01/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_4/document_4.html # BIG W's returns page states that for a major problem the customer is entitled to a replacement, repair or refund.
2026-08-16 medium confidence other
1 quote from 1 source If the problem is major, you are entitled to a replacement, repair or refund. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Corpus duplicate: this is a retailer restating a rule the corpus already establishes from the ACCC and ACL s 259(3). Backed, with one nuance worth keeping: the ACCC frames the ENTITLEMENT for a major failure as refund-or-replacement at the consumer's choice, with repair an extra option the consumer may accept - a business may not insist on repair for a major failure. ACL s 259(3) gives only rejection (s 263: refund or replacement at the consumer's election) or compensation for reduction in value. BIG W's own page carries the correct mandatory wording elsewhere on the same page: 'You are also entitled to choose a refund or replacement for major failures with goods.'
In this situation, you have the right to choose a replacement or a refund. You can also choose a repair, but you are entitled to a refund or replacement.Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) 2026-07-12 What was searched (4) https://www.bigw.com.au/returns (fetched, quote confirmed verbatim) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/contacting-a-business-to-fix-a-problem https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel ACL s 259 / s 263 in the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 Sch 2 compilation https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00109/2026-07-01/2026-07-01/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_4/document_4.html # BIG W's returns page states that BIG W retains the right to refuse a refund for unverified purchases.
2026-08-16 medium confidence other
1 quote from 1 source BIG W retains the right to refuse a refund for unverified purchases. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Corpus duplicate - proof-of-purchase rules are already established in this corpus from the ACCC. Backed with a limit: the same ACCC page says 'The law doesn't give a definition of how much proof is enough - the consumer just needs to reasonably demonstrate that they bought the item', and lists bank statements, reference numbers, warranty cards and serial numbers as acceptable. So 'unverified' can lawfully mean 'no adequate proof of any kind', not 'no till receipt'.
If a consumer requests a repair, replacement or refund, the business can ask for proof of purchase.Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) 2026-06-28 What was searched (3) https://www.bigw.com.au/returns (fetched, quote confirmed verbatim) https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=proof%20of%20purchase https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/receipts-bills-proof-of-purchase # Kmart's change of mind returns policy states that to be in resaleable condition a returned product must be in its original packaging, including instruction manuals and all accessories.
2026-08-16 medium confidence other
2 quotes from 1 source The product must be in resaleable condition, meaning: It is in its original packaging, including instruction manuals and all accessories; and Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Backed, and the distinction is the whole point. The ACCC's list of conditions a business may lawfully put on a change-of-mind policy includes, verbatim, 'requiring a product to be in original packaging'. Contrast ACL s 259(7) - 'The consumer may take action under this section whether or not the goods are in their original packaging' - which governs consumer-GUARANTEE claims only. Kmart's page is expressly its change-of-mind policy, so the packaging condition is lawful; the same condition applied to a faulty-goods remedy would be contradicted by s 259(7).
Under consumer law, businesses don’t have to offer refunds and replacements for changes of mind. So a business can put conditions on these change of mind policies, such as:Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) 2026-07-12 What was searched (4) https://www.kmart.com.au/change-of-mind-returns-policy/ (fetched, quote confirmed verbatim) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/contacting-a-business-to-fix-a-problem https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel ACL s 259(7) checked in https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00109/2026-07-01/2026-07-01/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_4/document_4.html # BIG W's 90 day change of mind policy provides a refund or exchange if the product is in original and saleable condition and packaging with all accessories included.
2026-08-16 other
2 quotes from 1 source BIG W will happily give you a refund or exchange within 90 days of purchase, provided you have proof of purchase and the product: is still in its original and saleable condition and packaging, with all accessories included; and Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Corpus duplicate - the change-of-mind rule is already established here from the ACCC. Backed: the ACCC's own list of lawful conditions includes 'limiting it to a certain number of days after purchase' and 'requiring a product to be in original packaging', which is precisely this policy. BIG W's page is also correctly framed, saying the policy 'is in addition to your rights under the Australian Consumer Law'. The same conditions attached to a faulty-goods remedy would be contradicted by ACL s 259(7).
Under consumer law, businesses don’t have to offer refunds and replacements for changes of mind. So a business can put conditions on these change of mind policies, such as:Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) 2026-07-12 What was searched (4) https://www.bigw.com.au/returns (fetched; both quoted lines confirmed verbatim) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/contacting-a-business-to-fix-a-problem https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel ACL s 259(7) in https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00109/2026-07-01/2026-07-01/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_4/document_4.html # JB Hi-Fi states that cover under its Extra Care plan ends upon first replacement with a new replacement product or payment, including by the issue of a store credit or JB Hi-Fi gift card.
2026-08-16 other
1 quote from 1 source ending on the date which is 5 years after the date of purchase/delivery or upon first replacement with a new replacement product or payment (including by the issue of a store credit or JB Hi-Fi gift card). Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Backed on the trader's own page, which is the primary source for its own plan terms (accessed 17 Aug 2026; the page carries no publication date). A once-only-replacement cap is a lawful term of a voluntary extended warranty. What it cannot do is limit the consumer guarantees underneath it - the ACCC: 'Warranties can't replace, change or take away a consumer's basic rights. These basic rights can last longer than a business's warranty', and ACL s 64 voids any term purporting to exclude, restrict or modify them. So a plan that has been exhausted by one replacement leaves the consumer's statutory rights intact. Note also that the plan itself may discharge in store credit, whereas under ACL s 263(5) a supplier cannot satisfy a statutory refund obligation with store credit.
ending on the date which is 5 years after the date of purchase/delivery or upon first replacement with a new replacement product or payment (including by the issue of a store credit or JB Hi-Fi gift card).JB Hi-Fi 2026-08-17 What was searched (3) https://www.jbhifi.com.au/pages/extracare (fetched; the sentence confirmed verbatim, and a parallel 3-year clause appears for the other plan tier) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/warranties ACL s 64 in https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00109/2026-07-01/2026-07-01/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_4/document_4.html # CHOICE reports that Kogan says it will not refund delivery costs in the case of a store credit or refund.
2019-01-21 other
1 quote from 1 source Kogan says: They won't refund delivery costs in the case of a store credit or refund. A source exists, but not for this checked 2026-08-16
Ambiguous, and CHOICE itself says why: 'Though not specifically referenced in the ACL, we don't think you should be out of pocket for delivery costs if you have to return faulty goods.' The regulator addresses RETURN costs squarely (must be reimbursed when the product does have a problem) but nowhere states whether the original outbound delivery charge must come back with the refund. The statute is split too: ACL s 263(4)(a) requires the supplier to refund 'any money paid by the consumer for the goods', which does not obviously reach a separate delivery charge, while s 259(4) lets the consumer recover damages for reasonably foreseeable loss, which plainly could. Which return type Kogan's term applies to could not be established - kogan.com returns pages are bot-blocked (403), so the only witness to the policy is CHOICE. The distinction matters: for a change-of-mind return the exclusion is lawful and common (BIG W says on its own returns page 'delivery fees paid for online orders are non-refundable for change of mind returns'); applied to a faulty-goods remedy it is at best doubtful. Separately worth flagging because the claim mentions store credit: ACL s 263(5) - 'The supplier cannot satisfy subsection (4)(a) by permitting the consumer to acquire goods from the supplier' - means a store credit cannot be forced on a consumer in place of a refund at all.
If the business confirms that the product does have a problem, it must reimburse the consumer for any reasonable return costs they have already paid.Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) 2026-06-28 What was searched (8) https://www.choice.com.au/shopping/consumer-rights-and-advice/your-rights/articles/kogan-returns-and-refunds-issues (fetched; the 'Kogan says' line confirmed verbatim) https://www.kogan.com/au/returns/ (HTTP 403 to curl - bot-blocked) https://www.kogan.com/au/help/returns/ (HTTP 403) https://help.kogan.com/hc/en-au (HTTP 404) https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=Kogan (only enforcement hits are the 2020 tax-time discount case and a 2023 magnets takedown - nothing on returns or delivery costs) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel ('Return costs' section read in full) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/online-shopping ACL ss 259(4), 263(4)-(5) in https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00109/2026-07-01/2026-07-01/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_4/document_4.html # Kmart states that it will accept product returns under consumer guarantees where the product is faulty or is not of acceptable quality.
2025-10-01 other
2 quotes from 1 source Kmart will accept product returns under consumer guarantees where: The product is faulty or is not of acceptable quality; Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Duplicate - our bookkeeping artefact. This corpus already establishes the acceptable-quality guarantee from the Act and the ACCC; the research recorded Kmart's correct restatement alongside the primary source. The statutory chain is s 54(1) (the guarantee, quoted above, arising wherever 'a person supplies, in trade or commerce, goods to a consumer' other than by auction) plus s 259(1), which lets a consumer take action where 'a guarantee that applies to the supply ... is not complied with'. Kmart's full list of triggers on the page maps onto the guarantees one for one: faulty/not of acceptable quality (s 54), doesn't do what the packaging states (s 55/s 56), doesn't match the sample or description (ss 56-57), recalled. The ACCC states the same in plain words: 'A product sold to a consumer must be of acceptable quality.' Kmart's page also correctly reproduces the mandatory ACL text and the major/minor split, including 'If the failure is minor, we reserve our right to offer to repair only', which matches the ACCC's 'The business does not have to offer a replacement or refund for a minor problem'.
there is a guarantee that the goods are of acceptable quality.Federal Register of Legislation - Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Schedule 2 (Australian Consumer Law), s 54(1) 2026-07-01 What was searched (5) curl of Competition and Consumer Act 2010 Sch 2 (ACL) full text to disk, then grep 'acceptable quality' (18 hits) to read s 54 and grep 'original packaging' to read s 259: https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00109/2026-07-01/2026-07-01/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_4/document_4.html https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/consumer-guarantees https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel curl https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=proof%20of%20purchase https://www.kmart.com.au/consumer-guarantee-returns-policy/ - retrieved by curl, quote verbatim under 'Consumer guarantee return requirements' # Regarding replacement, Kmart states that it reserves the right to assess the condition and age of returned goods before providing a repair, exchange or refund.
2025-10-01 other
1 quote from 1 source Kmart reserves the right to assess the condition and age of returned goods prior to providing a repair, exchange or refund. Not yet checked
Nobody has gone looking for a source for this one yet, so it says nothing either way.
# Kmart's consumer guarantee returns policy states that non-Kmart branded products require adequate proof of purchase.
2025-10-01 medium confidence other
1 quote from 1 source Non-Kmart branded products require adequate proof of purchase, including: Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Duplicate on two counts - our bookkeeping artefact, not an unbacked idea. First, the corpus already establishes the ACCC/CAV position that a business may require proof of purchase. Second, this is the same underlying assertion as researchId 789ebd608cc6 in the 'proof of purchase' brief, recorded again under this subject. CAV states the same rule with its rationale: 'Consumers will usually need to show proof of transaction in order to make a claim about faulty products or services. This is so suppliers can be sure they are providing a remedy for a product or service they actually sold.' Kmart's accepted forms (receipt or digital receipt, a clear photo of the receipt, digital gift receipt, online tax invoice or order confirmation, OnePass statement) are broader than a paper receipt and consistent with the regulators' lists. Note the contrast the policy itself draws: proof is required only for non-Kmart-branded goods, because Kmart waives it for its own brands - a concession beyond the ACL that CAV expressly permits.
The product does not have to be in its original packaging, but a business is entitled to ask consumers to provide some form of proof of purchaseAustralian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) 2026-06-28 What was searched (5) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/receipts-bills-proof-of-purchase https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/consumers-and-businesses/products-and-services/refunds-repairs-and-returns/receipts-and-other-proof-of-transaction https://www.kmart.com.au/consumer-guarantee-returns-policy/ - retrieved by curl, quote verbatim under 'Consumer guarantee proof of purchase requirements' curl https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=proof%20of%20purchase # JB Hi-Fi salespeople told CHOICE that there is no coverage after the extra year.
2023-12-14 other
1 quote from 1 source telling us that “the manufacturer gives one year warranty and then JB gives one extra year by consumer law” and that after that period “there’s no coverage, you go by yourself to a TV mechanic” The primary source says otherwise checked 2026-08-16
Contradicted flat, and by three separate regulator statements. (1) The ACCC quote above, which continues on the same page: 'Businesses must not mislead consumers into thinking that their rights are limited to the remedies or timeframe set out in a warranty against defects.' (2) The ACCC's consumer-guarantees page says a business cannot take rights away by 'displaying a ‘no refunds’ sign, or otherwise saying that refunds are not available at all, or not available at all after a certain number of days' or by 'suggesting the consumer must sign an extended warranty to avoid losing these basic rights after a certain date', and that 'Consumer guarantees are automatic and can’t be taken away. Warranties are extra promises that a business can choose to make on top of the consumer guarantees.' (3) CAV's 'Expired warranty' page (13 Oct 2023) states 'If a product turns out to be defective, the consumer may be entitled to a repair, replacement or refund (depending on whether the problem is major or cannot be fixed). This applies regardless of whether the product is still under warranty', and its worked example is almost identical to the mystery-shop scenario: a $6,000 TV that fails after two years with a 12-month warranty, where the store tells the consumer they should have bought an extended warranty. The framing in the claim is also wrong on its own terms - the guarantees are not 'one extra year given by JB'; they are federal statutory guarantees of indefinite duration running against the supplier, whose length depends on what a reasonable consumer would expect (ACL s 54(2)(e), durability). This corpus already holds the supporting material: the ACCC's 2 Nov 2022 durability guidance with per-category year figures, and the HP $3m penalty (July 2013) imposed for representing that the warranty period limited consumers' remedies - the exact representation made here.
After the warranty expires, the consumer guarantee of acceptable quality usually still applies. This means that if there’s a problem with a product, the consumer likely still has a right to a repair, refund or replacementAustralian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) 2026-06-28 What was searched (7) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/warranties https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/consumer-guarantees https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/consumers-and-businesses/products-and-services/refunds-repairs-and-returns/warranties/expired-warranty curl https://www.accc.gov.au/search?query=proof%20of%20purchase and link-crawl from the returned Consumers > Buying products and services tree to reach the warranties and consumer-guarantees pages curl of Competition and Consumer Act 2010 Sch 2 (ACL) full text to disk, then grep 'acceptable quality' (18 hits) - s 54(2)(e) makes durability part of the guarantee itself: https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00109/2026-07-01/2026-07-01/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_4/document_4.html https://www.choice.com.au/shopping/consumer-rights-and-advice/your-rights/articles/extended-warranty-mystery-shop # Kmart's consumer guarantee returns policy states that if the failure is minor Kmart reserves its right to offer to repair only.
2025-10-01 medium confidence other
1 quote from 1 source If the failure is minor, we reserve our right to offer to repair only. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Corpus duplicate - the minor/major remedy split is already established in this corpus from the ACCC and ACL s 259(2). Backed, but conditional: under ACL s 259(2)(b) and the same ACCC page, if the business cannot or will not repair within a reasonable time the consumer may then get it done elsewhere at the business's cost, or take a refund or replacement instead. A 'repair only' policy that did not yield at that point would be wrong.
When a product or service has a minor problem, the business must fix the problem or repair the product for free. The business does not have to offer a replacement or refund for a minor problem, although it can choose to do this.Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) 2026-06-28 What was searched (3) https://www.kmart.com.au/consumer-guarantee-returns-policy/ (fetched, quote confirmed verbatim) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel ACL ss 259(2), 261 in https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00109/2026-07-01/2026-07-01/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_4/document_4.html # JB Hi-Fi salespeople told CHOICE that if a product is over two years old the customer has to pay for the repairs themselves.
2023-12-14 other
1 quote from 1 source We found that salespeople in 24 of the 29 (83%) JB Hi-Fi stores we called misrepresented our consumer rights, telling us things like, “If it’s over two years, you have to pay for the repairs yourself.” The primary source says otherwise checked 2026-08-16
Contradicted, and the ACCC says so in terms on the same page: 'Businesses must not mislead consumers into thinking that their rights are limited to the remedies or timeframe set out in a warranty against defects', and 'These basic rights can last longer than a business's warranty.' Note what is and is not being traced: CHOICE's mystery shop is itself the primary record of what the salespeople said (verified verbatim, 24 of 29 stores, 83%); it is the RULE the salespeople asserted that the regulator contradicts. Consistent with the corpus's existing HP $3m enforcement finding (representing that a warranty period limited remedies).
Warranties against defects usually apply for a set amount of time. After the warranty expires, the consumer guarantee of acceptable quality usually still applies.Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) 2026-06-28 What was searched (5) https://www.choice.com.au/shopping/consumer-rights-and-advice/your-rights/articles/extended-warranty-mystery-shop (fetched; the 24-of-29 finding and the quoted salesperson line confirmed verbatim) https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/warranties https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/consumer-rights-and-guarantees https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/problem-with-a-product-or-service-you-bought/repair-replace-refund-cancel ACCC 'Guidance on the consumer guarantee: acceptable quality and durability' (already in corpus) # Sprintlaw asserts that manufacturers must ensure reasonable availability of spare parts and repair facilities for a reasonable time. Sprintlaw asserts that a business that knows parts will not be available should disclose this clearly before sale. 2025-01-22 other
1 quote from 1 source Manufacturers must ensure reasonable availability of spare parts and repair facilities for a reasonable time. If you know parts won't be available, disclose this clearly before sale. Backing found checked 2026-08-16
Both halves of the Sprintlaw sentence are backed, and this is a corpus duplicate - the repairs-and-spare-parts guarantee is already established here from the ACCC ('When a consumer buys a product, the manufacturer or importer must provide spare parts and repair facilities for a reasonable time after purchase'). One drift worth keeping: Sprintlaw says 'disclose this clearly before sale'; s 58(2) is stricter about form - the exception applies only where 'the manufacturer took reasonable action to ensure that the consumer would be given written notice, at or before the time when the consumer agrees to the supply of the goods'. Written notice, not merely clear disclosure. Also note the guarantee binds the manufacturer (which the ACL extends to importers), not the retailer, and s 259(1)(b) excludes s 58 from the action against suppliers.
there is a guarantee that the manufacturer of the goods will take reasonable action to ensure that facilities for the repair of the goods, and parts for the goods, are reasonably available for a reasonable period after the goods are supplied.Australian Consumer Law (Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Sch 2), s 58 2026-07-01 What was searched (3) https://sprintlaw.com.au/articles/free-repair-if-faulty/ (the retelling) ACL s 58 located and read in https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2004A00109/2026-07-01/2026-07-01/text/original/epub/OEBPS/document_4/document_4.html https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/buying-products-and-services/consumer-rights-and-guarantees