What we threw out
These are not claims that are false. They are answers the research wrote that GuaranteesOnRecord would not publish, because the sentence said more than the quote behind it actually proved. Several of them are true and badly sourced. They are here so you can judge whether the checking is real, which you cannot do from a site that only shows you what passed.
Read them as notes about our wording, not as findings about the law. If you want the answer to something, the subjects are where it is - everything on this page was kept out of them on purpose.
355 discarded drafts. A further 12 are not shown at all: each was rejected because it put a statement in the wrong organisation’s mouth, and printing it here would repeat that about a real business to make a point about our pipeline.
acceptable quality13
The Australian Consumer Law section 54(1) provides that where a person supplies goods to a consumer in trade or commerce, and the supply does not occur by way of sale by auction, there is a guarantee that the goods are of acceptable quality.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the guarantee's substantive conditions and wording, but none identify them as Australian Consumer Law section 54(1).
The part the quote did not support: The Australian Consumer Law section 54(1)
What it rested on
(a) a person supplies, in trade or commerce, goods to a consumer; and
(b) the supply does not occur by way of sale by auction;
there is a guarantee that the goods are of acceptable quality.
The Australian Consumer Law section 54(2) sets acceptable quality as a five-limb test.
Why it was not published: The quote lists five criteria under '(2)' but does not identify them as 'Australian Consumer Law section 54(2)'.
The part the quote did not support: Australian Consumer Law section 54(2)
What it rested on
(2) Goods are of acceptable quality if they are as: (a) fit for all the purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly supplied; and (b) acceptable in appearance and finish; and (c) free from defects; and (d) safe; and (e) durable;
The Australian Consumer Law section 54(2) measures the acceptable quality limbs against what a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the state and condition of the goods, including any hidden defects, would regard as acceptable.
Why it was not published: The quote states the reasonable-consumer standard but does not identify it as Australian Consumer Law section 54(2).
The part the quote did not support: The Australian Consumer Law section 54(2)
What it rested on
as a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the state and condition of the goods (including any hidden defects of the goods), would regard as acceptable having regard to the matters in subsection (3).
The Australian Consumer Law section 54(3) lists the nature of the goods as a matter relevant to the acceptable quality test.
Why it was not published: The quotes list the nature of the goods as a matter under subsection (2), but do not state that subsection (2) is the acceptable quality test.
The part the quote did not support: acceptable quality test
What it rested on
(3) 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.
The Australian Consumer Law section 54(3) lists the price of the goods if relevant as a matter relevant to the acceptable quality test.
Why it was not published: The quotes show a subsection (3) listing price if relevant for purposes of subsection (2), but do not identify that provision as Australian Consumer Law section 54(3) or the acceptable quality test.
The part the quote did not support: acceptable quality test
What it rested on
(3) 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.
The Australian Consumer Law section 54(3) lists statements on packaging or labelling as a matter relevant to the acceptable quality test.
Why it was not published: The quotes show subsection (3) lists packaging/labelling statements as matters for subsection (2), but they do not state that this is the acceptable quality test or identify ACL s 54(3).
The part the quote did not support: acceptable quality test
What it rested on
(3) 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.
The Australian Consumer Law section 54(3) lists representations by the supplier or manufacturer as a matter relevant to the acceptable quality test.
Why it was not published: The quotes establish section 54(3) lists supplier/manufacturer representations, but never state that subsection (2) is the acceptable quality test.
The part the quote did not support: acceptable quality test
What it rested on
(3) 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.
The Australian Consumer Law section 54(3) lists any other relevant circumstances of supply as a matter relevant to the acceptable quality test.
Why it was not published: The quotes list matters for 'subsection (2)' but never state that this is the acceptable quality test or identify Australian Consumer Law section 54(3).
The part the quote did not support: acceptable quality test
What it rested on
(3) 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.
The Australian Consumer Law section 54(4) deems goods to be of acceptable quality where the only reasons they are not were specifically drawn to the consumer's attention before the consumer agreed to the supply.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the substantive condition and outcome but do not identify the source as Australian Consumer Law section 54(4).
The part the quote did not support: Australian Consumer Law section 54(4)
What it rested on
(b) the only reason or reasons why they are not of acceptable quality were specifically drawn to the consumer’s attention before the consumer agreed to the supply;
the goods are taken to be of acceptable quality.
The Australian Consumer Law section 54(5) treats a defect as specifically drawn to a consumer's attention if it was disclosed on a written notice displayed with the goods that was transparent.
Why it was not published: The quote states the legal rule but does not identify it as section 54(5) of the Australian Consumer Law.
The part the quote did not support: section 54(5)
What it rested on
the reason or reasons why they are not of acceptable quality are taken, for the purposes of subsection (4), to have been specifically drawn to a consumer’s attention if those reasons were disclosed on a written notice that was displayed with the goods and that was transparent.
The Australian Consumer Law section 54(6) provides that goods do not fail the acceptable quality guarantee where the consumer causes them to become of unacceptable quality or fails to take reasonable steps to prevent that, and they are damaged by abnormal use.
Why it was not published: The quotes state subsection (6) but do not identify it as Australian Consumer Law section 54(6).
The part the quote did not support: Australian Consumer Law section 54(6)
What it rested on
(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.
Consumer Affairs Victoria states that under the Australian Consumer Law, products bought from an Australian business are automatically covered by consumer guarantees regardless of any other warranty.
Why it was not published: The quote supports the guarantee statement but does not state that it is under the Australian Consumer Law.
The part the quote did not support: under the Australian Consumer Law
What it rested on
products bought from an Australian business are automatically covered by consumer guarantees regardless of any other warranty
Kmart states that acceptable quality requires adequate proof of purchase for returns of non-Kmart branded products.
Why it was not published: The quote states non-Kmart branded products require adequate proof of purchase but does not mention acceptable quality.
The part the quote did not support: acceptable quality requires adequate proof of purchase
What it rested on
Non-Kmart branded products require adequate proof of purchase, including:
cancelling a service11
Regarding cancelling a service, the Australian Consumer Law section 63 lists contracts for the transportation or storage of business goods and contracts of insurance as services to which the services guarantees do not apply.
Why it was not published: The quotes state that the subdivision does not apply to those contracts but do not identify the provision as Australian Consumer Law section 63.
The part the quote did not support: section 63
What it rested on
The ACL doesn’t cover complaints about: Insurance Utilities Telecommunications Financial services.
(1) This Subdivision does not apply to services that are, or are to be, supplied under:
(a) a contract for or in relation to the transportation or storage of goods for the purposes of a business, trade, profession or occupation carried on or engaged in by the person for whom the goods are transported or stored; or
(b) a contract of insurance.
The Australian Consumer Law section 267(3)(a) provides that where a failure to comply with a services guarantee cannot be remedied or is a major failure, the consumer may terminate the contract for the supply of the services.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the substantive rule but do not identify it as Australian Consumer Law section 267(3)(a).
The part the quote did not support: section 267(3)(a)
What it rested on
(3) If the failure to comply with the guarantee cannot be remedied or is a major failure, the consumer may:
(a) terminate the contract for the supply of the services; or
The Australian Consumer Law section 267(2)(b) provides that where the consumer has required the supplier to remedy a services failure and the supplier refuses or fails to comply within a reasonable time, the consumer may terminate the contract for the supply of the services.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the termination remedy but do not identify it as Australian Consumer Law section 267(2)(b).
The part the quote did not support: section 267(2)(b)
What it rested on
(b) 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:
(ii) terminate the contract for the supply of the services.
The Australian Consumer Law section 269(2) provides that termination of a services contract takes effect at the time the termination is made known to the supplier, whether by words or by conduct indicating the consumer's intention to terminate.
Why it was not published: The quote states the termination timing rule verbatim but does not identify it as Australian Consumer Law section 269(2).
The part the quote did not support: section 269(2)
What it rested on
(a) at the time the termination is made known to the supplier of the services (whether by words or by conduct indicating the consumer’s intention to terminate the contract); or
The Australian Consumer Law section 270 provides that where a consumer terminates a services contract, goods connected with the services are taken to have been rejected at the time the termination takes effect.
Why it was not published: The cited quote states the timing of deemed rejection but does not identify section 270 or a services contract.
The part the quote did not support: The Australian Consumer Law section 270 provides that where a consumer terminates a services contract, goods connected with the services
What it rested on
(c) the consumer is taken to have rejected the goods at the time the termination of the contract takes effect; and
Consumer Affairs Victoria states that where there is a major problem with a service, the consumer can cancel the contract and pay a reasonable amount for the work done.
Why it was not published: The cited quote states the cancellation/reasonable-payment remedy but does not mention the major-problem condition.
The part the quote did not support: where there is a major problem with a service
What it rested on
cancel the contract and pay a reasonable amount for the work done, or seek a partial refund of money already paid, or
Consumer Affairs Victoria states that where there is a major problem with a service, the consumer can seek a partial refund of money already paid.
Why it was not published: The quote states the partial refund option but does not mention a major problem with a service.
The part the quote did not support: where there is a major problem with a service
What it rested on
cancel the contract and pay a reasonable amount for the work done, or seek a partial refund of money already paid, or
The ACCC states that a consumer cancelling a service for a major problem may not get a full refund.
Why it was not published: The quote says a refund may not be full but does not mention cancellation for a major problem.
The part the quote did not support: cancelling a service for a major problem
What it rested on
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, or
The ACCC states that a consumer cancelling a service for a major problem needs to pay a reasonable amount for any work done so far and as expected.
Why it was not published: The quote supports the reasonable payment for work done, but does not state that this applies specifically to a consumer cancelling a service for a major problem.
The part the quote did not support: cancelling a service for a major problem
What it rested on
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, or
The ACCC states that where a business makes a material change to a service it agreed to provide, it should cancel the contracts of customers who do not consent to continue with the changed service.
Why it was not published: The quote supports cancelling contracts for customers who do not consent to the changed service, but does not specify that the change must be material or to a service the business agreed to provide.
The part the quote did not support: where a business makes a material change to a service it agreed to provide
What it rested on
cancel the contracts of, and refund any pre-payments made by, those customers who do not consent to continue with the changed service.
The ACCC states that where a business makes a material change to a service it agreed to provide, it should refund any pre-payments made by customers who do not consent to continue with the changed service.
Why it was not published: The quote supports refunding non-consenting customers for a changed service, but does not state the change was material.
The part the quote did not support: material change to a service it agreed to provide
What it rested on
cancel the contracts of, and refund any pre-payments made by, those customers who do not consent to continue with the changed service.
change of mind2
Consumer Affairs Victoria states that a store with a change-of-mind policy must display the policy at the point of sale or on its website so customers can read it before buying.
Why it was not published: The quote says the policy 'should' be displayed, not that it 'must' be displayed.
The part the quote did not support: must display
What it rested on
Some stores and chains have an in-store policy to offer a refund, exchange or credit note if a customer changes their mind. If so, this policy should be clearly displayed at the point of sale or included on the business’ website (if it has one), so customers can read it before buying. Stores that have such policies must abide by them.
The ACCC states in its guide for businesses and legal practitioners that a supplier can have a store policy offering a refund, replacement or credit note when a consumer changes their mind.
Why it was not published: The quote says a supplier can have a store policy to offer a refund, replacement or credit note 'when this happens,' but it does not state that 'this happens' refers to a consumer changing their mind.
The part the quote did not support: when a consumer changes their mind
What it rested on
But a supplier can have a store policy to offer a refund, replacement or credit note when this happens. If so, they must abide by this policy.
consequential loss11
Section 259(4) of the Australian Consumer Law allows a consumer to recover damages from the supplier for loss or damage suffered because of a failure to comply with a guarantee, where it was reasonably foreseeable that the consumer would suffer such loss or damage.
Why it was not published: The quote states the same damages entitlement but does not identify it as Section 259(4) of the Australian Consumer Law.
The part the quote did not support: Section 259(4) of the Australian Consumer Law
What it rested on
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.
Section 259(5) of the Australian Consumer Law disapplies the damages right where the failure to comply with the guarantee occurred only because of a cause independent of human control that occurred after the goods left the control of the supplier.
Why it was not published: The quote states subsection (4) does not apply under that condition, but does not identify it as Section 259(5) or as a damages right.
The part the quote did not support: Section 259(5) of the Australian Consumer Law disapplies the damages right
What it rested on
Subsection (4) does not apply if the failure to comply with the guarantee occurred only because of a cause independent of human control that occurred after the goods left the control of the supplier.
Section 259(6) of the Australian Consumer Law states that the damages right applies in addition to the repair, replacement and rejection remedies.
Why it was not published: The quote only states subsection (4) applies in addition to subsections (2) and (3) without identifying Section 259(6) or describing those subsections as damages and repair/replacement/rejection remedies.
The part the quote did not support: Section 259(6) of the Australian Consumer Law states that the damages right applies in addition to the repair, replacement and rejection remedies
What it rested on
To avoid doubt, subsection (4) applies in addition to subsections (2) and (3).
Regarding consequential loss, the ACCC states that compensation should put the consumer back in the financial position they were in before the problem happened.
Why it was not published: The cited quote states the general compensation principle but does not mention or establish that it concerns consequential loss.
The part the quote did not support: Regarding consequential loss
What it rested on
Compensation should put the consumer back in the financial position they were in before the problem happened.
The ACCC states that for consequential loss, most costs a consumer faces are financial.
Why it was not published: The quote states most costs are financial but does not tie this to consequential loss.
The part the quote did not support: for consequential loss
What it rested on
Most costs are financial, but there can be other costs, such as lost time or productivity, to be covered.
The ACCC states that for consequential loss, there can be other costs such as lost time or productivity to be covered by compensation.
Why it was not published: The quote mentions other costs such as lost time or productivity but does not tie them to consequential loss.
The part the quote did not support: for consequential loss
What it rested on
Most costs are financial, but there can be other costs, such as lost time or productivity, to be covered.
The ACCC's consumer guarantees guide states that writing a term disclaiming responsibility for extra loss into a sales contract misleads the consumer about their legal right to compensation for consequential loss under the ACL.
Why it was not published: The quote supports the statement about misleading consumers regarding consequential loss, but its antecedent does not establish the specific contract-term conduct described in the claim.
The part the quote did not support: writing a term disclaiming responsibility for extra loss into a sales contract
What it rested on
This misleads the consumer about their legal right to compensation for consequential loss under the ACL. This misleading conduct is a breach of the ACL.
The ACCC's consumer guarantees guide states that writing a term disclaiming responsibility for extra loss into a sales contract is a breach of the ACL.
Why it was not published: The quote states misleading conduct about consequential loss is a breach, not that writing a contractual disclaimer term is itself a breach.
The part the quote did not support: writing a term disclaiming responsibility for extra loss into a sales contract is a breach of the ACL
What it rested on
This misleads the consumer about their legal right to compensation for consequential loss under the ACL. This misleading conduct is a breach of the ACL.
Consequential loss is echoed by Kmart's statement that claims for compensation should be addressed with supporting evidence to its customer service team.
Why it was not published: The quote mentions compensation and return expenses but does not mention or entail consequential loss.
The part the quote did not support: Consequential loss is echoed by Kmart's statement
What it rested on
Claims for compensation or reasonable expenses incurred in returning your purchase together with supporting evidence, should be addressed to our Kmart Customer Service team
Consequential loss is echoed by Kmart's statement that claims for reasonable expenses incurred in returning a purchase should be addressed with supporting evidence to its customer service team.
Why it was not published: The quote states Kmart's policy on reasonable return expenses but does not mention or establish that 'consequential loss' is echoed by it.
The part the quote did not support: Consequential loss is echoed by
What it rested on
Claims for compensation or reasonable expenses incurred in returning your purchase together with supporting evidence, should be addressed to our Kmart Customer Service team
The Australian Consumer Survey 2023 reports that when consumers lose money to scams or frauds they most often lose less than $10,000.
Why it was not published: The quote says consumers most often lose less than $10,000 when they lose money generally, but does not mention scams or frauds.
The part the quote did not support: to scams or frauds
What it rested on
When consumers do lose money, they most often lose less than $10,000.
consumer guarantee14
For the consumer guarantee, the ACCC publishes a separate mandatory warranty-against-defects text.
Why it was not published: The quotes mention only a generic 'mandatory text' for services, not a 'warranty-against-defects' text or that it is separate.
The part the quote did not support: separate mandatory warranty-against-defects text
What it rested on
Mandatory text for services supplied after 9 June 2019
The mandatory text for the supply of services after 9 June 2019 is:
For the consumer guarantee, the separate mandatory warranty-against-defects text is for the supply of services after 9 June 2019.
Why it was not published: The quotes establish mandatory text for the supply of services after 9 June 2019, but do not identify it as the separate mandatory warranty-against-defects text or tie it to the consumer guarantee.
The part the quote did not support: separate mandatory warranty-against-defects text
What it rested on
Mandatory text for services supplied after 9 June 2019
The mandatory text for the supply of services after 9 June 2019 is:
The compilation of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 that contains the Australian Consumer Law as Schedule 2 is Compilation No. 165.
Why it was not published: The quotes establish only 'Compilation No. 165' but do not identify the act as the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 or mention the Australian Consumer Law as Schedule 2.
The part the quote did not support: the compilation of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 that contains the Australian Consumer Law as Schedule 2
What it rested on
Compilation No. 165 Compilation date: 1 July 2026 Includes amendments: Act No. 111, 2023, Act No. 57, 2025 and Act No. 59, 2025
Compilation No. 165
Compilation date: 1 July 2026
The compilation of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 that contains the Australian Consumer Law as Schedule 2 has a compilation date of 1 July 2026.
Why it was not published: The quotes establish a compilation date of 1 July 2026, but none states that the compilation is of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 containing the Australian Consumer Law as Schedule 2.
The part the quote did not support: that contains the Australian Consumer Law as Schedule 2
What it rested on
Compilation No. 165 Compilation date: 1 July 2026 Includes amendments: Act No. 111, 2023, Act No. 57, 2025 and Act No. 59, 2025
Compilation No. 165
Compilation date: 1 July 2026
Consumer Affairs Victoria's 'No refund' signs page states the maximum penalties for a body corporate are the greater of $10 million or three times the benefit obtained.
Why it was not published: The CAV quote only introduces 'greater of:', while the $10 million and three-times-benefit figures come from ACCC quotes, not the CAV page.
The part the quote did not support: Consumer Affairs Victoria's 'No refund' signs page states ... $10 million or three times the benefit obtained
What it rested on
The maximum civil penalty for providing false or misleading information about the existence, exclusion or effect of the consumer guarantees or remedies is $1.1 million for a body corporate and $220,000 for an individual.
The maximum civil pecuniary and criminal penalties for a body corporate are the greater of:
$10 million, or
three times the value of the benefit obtained from the offence, or act or omission, by the body corporate and any related bodies corporate if the benefit obtained can be determined by the court, or
Consumer Affairs Victoria's unfair contract terms page states penalties can be as high as $50 million for businesses.
Why it was not published: The $50 million quote is from a 'No refund' signs page, not the unfair contract terms page cited.
The part the quote did not support: unfair contract terms page states penalties can be as high as $50 million for businesses
What it rested on
The maximum civil pecuniary and criminal penalties for a body corporate are the greater of:
$10 million, or
Penalties can be as high as:
$50 million for businesses
The Australian Consumer Law defines goods as being of acceptable quality if they are fit for all the purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly supplied, acceptable in appearance and finish, free from defects, safe and durable.
Why it was not published: The quotes only support the 'fit for all purposes' criterion, not the additional acceptable quality criteria listed in the claim.
The part the quote did not support: acceptable in appearance and finish, free from defects, safe and durable
What it rested on
54 Guarantee as to acceptable quality
Goods are of acceptable quality if they are as:
fit for all the purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly supplied; and
The Australian Consumer Law's text sets the consumer threshold for acquiring goods at $40,000.
Why it was not published: The cited quotes do not state the $40,000 threshold amount.
The part the quote did not support: at $40,000
What it rested on
A person is taken to have acquired particular goods as a consumer if, and only if:
the amount paid or payable for the goods, as worked out under subsections (4) to (9), did not exceed:
if a greater amount is prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph—that greater amount; or
The ACCC states that the mandatory text for a warranty against defects on the supply of goods says that the goods come with guarantees that cannot be excluded under the Australian Consumer Law.
Why it was not published: The quoted wording is provided, but the quote does not state that it is the mandatory text for a warranty against defects on the supply of goods.
The part the quote did not support: mandatory text for a warranty against defects on the supply of goods
What it rested on
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.
The ACCC states that the mandatory text for a warranty against defects on the supply of goods says that the consumer is entitled to a replacement or refund for a major failure.
Why it was not published: The quotes give the consumer entitlement wording but do not state that it is the mandatory text for a warranty against defects.
The part the quote did not support: mandatory text for a warranty against defects on the supply of goods
What it rested on
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.
JB Hi-Fi salespeople told CHOICE that the manufacturer gives one year warranty.
Why it was not published: The quote says someone told CHOICE this, but does not identify the speakers as JB Hi-Fi salespeople.
The part the quote did not support: JB Hi-Fi salespeople
What it rested on
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”
JB Hi-Fi salespeople told CHOICE that JB gives one extra year by consumer law.
Why it was not published: The quote shows CHOICE was told that JB gives one extra year, but it does not identify the speakers as JB Hi-Fi salespeople.
The part the quote did not support: JB Hi-Fi salespeople
What it rested on
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”
Retail salespeople told CHOICE that a customer's right to a remedy under the consumer guarantee after the warranty period would be decided by putting it through the store's system.
Why it was not published: The quotes show the store system determines what the retailer is allowed to do, but they do not mention the warranty period or consumer guarantee.
The part the quote did not support: after the warranty period
What it rested on
“Come in to us and we put it through the system – it tells us what we’re allowed to do.”
“Nine times out of 10 [the system] will say, ‘Sorry, but it’s at your cost’.”
The practical effect of consumer guarantee that CHOICE reports is that 73 of the 80 salespeople it spoke to in its mystery shop offered to sell it an extended warranty.
Why it was not published: The quote establishes that 73 of 80 salespeople offered an extended warranty, but it does not tie this to the practical effect of a consumer guarantee.
The part the quote did not support: practical effect of consumer guarantee
What it rested on
In fact, 73 of the 80 salespeople we spoke to offered to sell us one.
digital products5
An ACCC spokesperson told CHOICE that where digital products are offered under a licensing arrangement, businesses should be transparent and upfront prior to purchase about any restrictions or conditions on the licence.
Why it was not published: The quote says 'the spokesperson' but does not identify that spokesperson as being from the ACCC.
The part the quote did not support: ACCC spokesperson
What it rested on
When goods or services are offered under a licensing arrangement, “businesses should be transparent and upfront prior to purchase about any restrictions or conditions on the licence, particularly those that impact consumers’ continued use of the relevant product or service,” the spokesperson says
Microsoft's terms and conditions state that Microsoft may stop distributing any digital good at any time.
Why it was not published: The quote states Microsoft may stop distributing digital goods, but it does not identify that statement as coming from Microsoft's terms and conditions.
The part the quote did not support: terms and conditions
What it rested on
“Microsoft may stop distributing any digital good, or add to or reduce the capabilities for any digital goods, at any time”
Microsoft's terms and conditions state that Microsoft may add to or reduce the capabilities for any digital goods at any time.
Why it was not published: The quote states Microsoft may change capabilities but does not establish that this statement comes from Microsoft's terms and conditions.
The part the quote did not support: Microsoft's terms and conditions state
What it rested on
“Microsoft may stop distributing any digital good, or add to or reduce the capabilities for any digital goods, at any time”
Telstra Box Office was announced by Telstra to be shut down on 30 June 2024.
Why it was not published: The quote refers only to 'the service' without naming Telstra Box Office, so the specific product name is not established.
The part the quote did not support: Telstra Box Office
What it rested on
Telstra announced earlier this year that the service would be shut down on 30 June 2024 and be replaced by Fetch, which Telstra has acquired.
Telstra Box Office was announced by Telstra to be replaced by Fetch.
Why it was not published: The quote says Telstra announced that 'the service' would be replaced by Fetch but does not name that service as Telstra Box Office.
The part the quote did not support: Telstra Box Office
What it rested on
Telstra announced earlier this year that the service would be shut down on 30 June 2024 and be replaced by Fetch, which Telstra has acquired.
durability12
Section 54(2) of the Australian Consumer Law provides that goods are of acceptable quality if they are as durable as a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with their state and condition would regard as acceptable.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the durability standard but do not identify it as Section 54(2) of the Australian Consumer Law.
The part the quote did not support: Section 54(2) of the Australian Consumer Law
What it rested on
Goods are of acceptable quality if they are as: (a) fit for all the purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly supplied; and (b) acceptable in appearance and finish; and (c) free from defects; and (d) safe; and (e) durable;
as a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the state and condition of the goods (including any hidden defects of the goods), would regard as acceptable having regard to the matters in subsection (3).
Section 54(3) of the Australian Consumer Law lists the matters relevant to acceptable quality as the nature of the goods, the price, statements on packaging or labels, representations by the supplier or manufacturer, and any other relevant circumstances relating to the supply.
Why it was not published: The quote lists matters for subsection (2) but does not identify Section 54(3), the Australian Consumer Law, or acceptable quality.
The part the quote did not support: Section 54(3) of the Australian Consumer Law lists the matters relevant to acceptable quality
What it rested on
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.
Section 54(6) of the Australian Consumer Law provides that goods do not fail to be of acceptable quality if the consumer causes them to become of unacceptable quality and they are damaged by abnormal use.
Why it was not published: The quote states the substantive rule but does not identify it as Section 54(6) of the Australian Consumer Law.
The part the quote did not support: Section 54(6) of the Australian Consumer Law
What it rested on
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.
The documented position on durability is that the ACCC states that consumer guarantees may continue to apply during the period of a manufacturer's or supplier's warranty.
Why it was not published: The quote says 'those warranties' but does not specify they are manufacturer's or supplier's warranties.
The part the quote did not support: manufacturer's or supplier's
What it rested on
This means consumer guarantees may continue to apply during the period of those warranties and after those warranties expire.
The documented position on durability is that the ACCC states that consumer guarantees may continue to apply after the manufacturer's or supplier's warranties expire.
Why it was not published: The quote says consumer guarantees may continue after 'those warranties' expire, but does not specify that they are manufacturer's or supplier's warranties.
The part the quote did not support: manufacturer's or supplier's warranties
What it rested on
This means consumer guarantees may continue to apply during the period of those warranties and after those warranties expire.
The ACCC gives a worked example concerning a laptop's durability.
Why it was not published: The quote shows the ACCC discusses a laptop's durability but does not establish it is presented as a worked example.
The part the quote did not support: worked example
What it rested on
This is because a reasonable consumer would expect a laptop to last for longer than 18 months, despite the manufacturer's warranty having expired.
The ACCC's documented position on durability is that acceptable quality means a product is safe.
Why it was not published: The quote states acceptable quality means safe, durable and free from defects, but it does not state that the position on durability is that acceptable quality means safe.
The part the quote did not support: on durability is that acceptable quality means a product is safe
What it rested on
Acceptable quality means the product:
is safe, durable and free from defects
A Good Guys salesperson told CHOICE's mystery shoppers that the manufacturer gives only one year's warranty on the TV.
Why it was not published: The quotes only say 'on this' and do not specify a TV.
The part the quote did not support: on the TV
What it rested on
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."
CHOICE reports that Kogan says, regarding durability, it will refund a faulty product within the first 6 months.
Why it was not published: The quote states Kogan will refund a faulty product within the first 6 months only, but it does not say this policy is regarding durability.
The part the quote did not support: regarding durability
What it rested on
Kogan says: They'll refund a faulty product within the first 6 months only. (Products over $1000, excluding consumables.)
CHOICE reports that Kogan says, regarding durability, it will refund a faulty product only if the product costs over $1000.
Why it was not published: The quote mentions 'faulty product' but does not state or clearly entail that Kogan's statement concerned durability.
The part the quote did not support: regarding durability
What it rested on
Kogan says: They'll refund a faulty product within the first 6 months only. (Products over $1000, excluding consumables.)
CHOICE reports that Kogan says, regarding durability, the refund for a faulty product excludes consumables.
Why it was not published: The quote mentions refunds for faulty products excluding consumables but does not tie the policy to durability.
The part the quote did not support: regarding durability
What it rested on
Kogan says: They'll refund a faulty product within the first 6 months only. (Products over $1000, excluding consumables.)
CHOICE reports that a nationally representative survey found that 23% of respondents had durability issues in the past 12 months.
Why it was not published: The quote says 23% of survey respondents had durability issues in the past 12 months but does not state the survey was nationally representative.
The part the quote did not support: nationally representative survey
What it rested on
In the past 12 months, 23% of the survey respondents have had issues with products stopping working before they were reasonably expected to.
extended warranty3
The Good Guys states its paid Gold Service Extras plan provides certainty and support through a range of benefits and inclusions when a product is faulty.
Why it was not published: The quote supports the stated benefits but does not establish that Gold Service Extras is a paid plan.
The part the quote did not support: paid
What it rested on
“In most cases, extended warranties aren’t worth purchasing. If your product becomes faulty or does not work, you will likely be covered for a repair, replacement or refund under the ACL,” says CHOICE Head of Policy and Government Relations, Patrick Veyret.
Gold Service Extras takes the stress out of dealing with faulty products. From the moment you get your new product home, Gold Service Extras provides certainty and support through a range of benefits and inclusions ensuring you are back up and running with a working product in no time.
The ACCC states that businesses must not pressure consumers to buy an extended warranty.
Why it was not published: The quote contains the phrase but not the prohibition 'must not', so the normative claim is not established.
The part the quote did not support: must not
Consumer Affairs Victoria states that suppliers must not tell a consumer they must pay for any rights equivalent to a consumer guarantee.
Why it was not published: The quote contains the prohibited wording but does not itself state that suppliers must not tell it.
The part the quote did not support: suppliers must not
What it rested on
tell a consumer that they must pay for any rights equivalent to a consumer guarantee.
faulty goods15
Section 54 of the Australian Consumer Law creates a guarantee for goods supplied in trade or commerce to a consumer.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the guarantee language but do not identify it as Section 54 of the Australian Consumer Law.
The part the quote did not support: Section 54 of the Australian Consumer Law
What it rested on
a person supplies, in trade or commerce, goods to a consumer
the supply does not occur by way of sale by auction
there is a guarantee that the goods are of acceptable quality
Section 54(2) of the Australian Consumer Law requires goods of acceptable quality to be fit for all the purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly supplied.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the acceptable-quality fitness requirement but do not identify Section 54(2) or the Australian Consumer Law.
The part the quote did not support: Section 54(2) of the Australian Consumer Law
What it rested on
Goods are of acceptable quality if they are as:
fit for all the purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly supplied
Section 54(6) of the Australian Consumer Law provides that goods do not fail to be of acceptable quality where the consumer causes them to become of unacceptable quality and they are damaged by abnormal use.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the substantive exclusion but do not identify it as Section 54(6) of the Australian Consumer Law.
The part the quote did not support: Section 54(6) of the Australian Consumer Law
What it rested on
Goods do not fail to be of acceptable quality if:
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
they are damaged by abnormal use
Section 259(7) of the Australian Consumer Law provides that a consumer may take action against a supplier whether or not the goods are in their original packaging.
Why it was not published: The quote does not identify Section 259(7) or state that the action is against a supplier.
The part the quote did not support: Section 259(7) of the Australian Consumer Law ... against a supplier
What it rested on
The consumer may take action under this section whether or not the goods are in their original packaging.
Section 260(1)(e) of the Australian Consumer Law makes a failure a major failure where the goods are not of acceptable quality because they are unsafe.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the substantive major-failure rule but do not cite or show that it is Section 260(1)(e) of the Australian Consumer Law.
The part the quote did not support: Section 260(1)(e)
What it rested on
A failure to comply with a guarantee referred to in section 259(1)(b) that applies to a supply of goods is a major failure if:
the goods are not of acceptable quality because they are unsafe
Section 260(1)(a) of the Australian Consumer Law makes a failure a major failure where the goods would not have been acquired by a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the nature and extent of the failure.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the major-failure rule but do not identify it as Section 260(1)(a) of the Australian Consumer Law.
The part the quote did not support: Section 260(1)(a) of the Australian Consumer Law
What it rested on
A failure to comply with a guarantee referred to in section 259(1)(b) that applies to a supply of goods is a major failure if:
the goods would not have been acquired by a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the nature and extent of the failure
Section 259(2) of the Australian Consumer Law lets a consumer require the supplier to remedy a non-major failure within a reasonable time.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the substantive rule but do not state the specific section or act citation.
The part the quote did not support: Section 259(2) of the Australian Consumer Law
What it rested on
If the failure to comply with the guarantee can be remedied and is not a major failure:
the consumer may require the supplier to remedy the failure within a reasonable time
The ACCC states that when a business sells faulty goods, it must give the consumer a choice that includes a replacement of the same type of product.
Why it was not published: The quotes condition the replacement choice on a product with a 'major problem,' not all faulty goods.
The part the quote did not support: faulty goods
What it rested on
When a business sells a product with a major problem, or a product that later develops a major problem, it must give the consumer the choice of a:
replacement of the same type of product.
The ACCC's documented position on major failure is that a business must not deduct an amount from a refund to take into account the use a consumer has had of the product.
Why it was not published: The quote states the refund rule but does not say this is the documented position specifically on major failure.
The part the quote did not support: on major failure
What it rested on
A refund should be the full amount the consumer paid for the product. The business must not deduct an amount from a refund to take into account the use a consumer has had of the product.
Bunnings recommends customers retain their receipt for faulty goods.
Why it was not published: The quote recommends retaining a receipt for proof of purchase but does not mention faulty goods.
The part the quote did not support: for faulty goods
What it rested on
We recommend you retain your receipt, as we may require proof that you purchased the product from us.
Bunnings may require proof that faulty goods were purchased from Bunnings.
Why it was not published: The quote says proof of purchase may be required generally, but does not state that proof is required specifically for faulty goods.
The part the quote did not support: faulty goods
What it rested on
We recommend you retain your receipt, as we may require proof that you purchased the product from us.
In relation to faulty goods, the Australian Consumer Survey 2023 reports that 7% of consumers had a problem related to the warranty or guarantee.
Why it was not published: The quote says 7% of consumers had a problem related to warranty or guarantee but does not state this was in relation to faulty goods.
The part the quote did not support: In relation to faulty goods
What it rested on
Of the 7% of consumers who had a problem related to the warranty or guarantee, half had a problem getting a refund or replacement, a significant increase on 2016 (36%).
In relation to faulty goods, half of the consumers who had a problem related to the warranty or guarantee had a problem getting a refund or replacement.
Why it was not published: The quote supports the half statistic for consumers with warranty/guarantee problems but does not state this was in relation to faulty goods.
The part the quote did not support: faulty goods
What it rested on
Of the 7% of consumers who had a problem related to the warranty or guarantee, half had a problem getting a refund or replacement, a significant increase on 2016 (36%).
In relation to faulty goods, the proportion of consumers who had a problem related to the warranty or guarantee and who had a problem getting a refund or replacement was a significant increase on the 36% recorded in 2016.
Why it was not published: The quote supports the warranty/guarantee refund statistic but does not mention faulty goods.
The part the quote did not support: In relation to faulty goods
What it rested on
Of the 7% of consumers who had a problem related to the warranty or guarantee, half had a problem getting a refund or replacement, a significant increase on 2016 (36%).
The Australian Consumer Survey 2023 reports that 38% of consumers who had a warranty or guarantee problem say the retailer or manufacturer would not honour the warranty or guaranty.
Why it was not published: The quote gives the 38% statistic but does not state that this percentage is among consumers who had a warranty or guarantee problem.
The part the quote did not support: consumers who had a warranty or guarantee problem
What it rested on
38% say the retailer or manufacturer would not honour the warranty or guaranty.
gift card expiry5
The gift card rules were inserted into the Australian Consumer Law as a new Division 3A of Part 3-2 by Schedule 1 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Gift Cards) Act 2018.
Why it was not published: The quotes show insertion of a new Division 3A Gift cards after Division 3 of Part 3-2 of Schedule 2, but do not identify that Schedule 2 is the Australian Consumer Law.
The part the quote did not support: Australian Consumer Law
What it rested on
6 After Division 3 of Part 3 ‑ 2 of Schedule 2
Division 3A - Gift cards
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.
Australian Consumer Law section 99B(2) deems a gift card sold with a shorter expiry to cease being redeemable three years after supply.
Why it was not published: The quotes support section 99B and the 3-year deeming language but do not expressly identify subsection 99B(2) or the shorter-expiry condition.
The part the quote did not support: section 99B(2)
What it rested on
99B Gift cards to be redeemable for at least 3 years
the day that the gift card ceases to be redeemable is taken to be 3 years after the day of that supply.
Australian Consumer Law section 99C requires that a gift card supplied to a consumer prominently show its expiry, its supply date with the redemption period, or words to the effect of 'no expiry date'.
Why it was not published: The quotes show a prominence requirement and the 'no expiry date' option, but do not state the alternative that the supply date with the redemption period must appear.
The part the quote did not support: its supply date with the redemption period
What it rested on
99C When gift card ceases to be redeemable to appear prominently on gift card
A person must not, in trade or commerce, supply a gift card to a consumer if one of the following does not appear prominently on the gift card:
the words "no expiry date" or words to that effect.
Consumer Affairs Victoria states that a gift card without an activation expiry date may be used for a reasonable length of time after it was originally purchased.
Why it was not published: The quote conditions this on the card having no expiry date at all (including no activation expiry date), not merely lacking an activation expiry date.
The part the quote did not support: a gift card without an activation expiry date may be used
What it rested on
If the gift card or voucher does not have an expiry date (including an activation expiry date), the consumer may use it for a reasonable length of time after it was originally purchased.
The Treasury Laws Amendment (Gift Cards) Act 2018 set a penalty of $30,000 for a body corporate in the gift card provisions it inserted into the Australian Consumer Law.
Why it was not published: The $30,000 corporate penalty is quoted, but no quote states it is in provisions inserted into the Australian Consumer Law.
The part the quote did not support: in the gift card provisions it inserted into the Australian Consumer Law
What it rested on
if the person is a body corporate—$30,000; or
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.
layby1
The Australian Consumer Law provides that any deposit paid by the consumer for the goods is taken to be an instalment.
Why it was not published: The quote states the deposit rule but does not identify the source as the Australian Consumer Law.
The part the quote did not support: The Australian Consumer Law provides
What it rested on
any deposit paid by the consumer for the goods is taken to be an instalment.
major failure21
The Australian Consumer Law section 260(1)(a) makes a failure to comply with a guarantee applying to a supply of goods a major failure if the goods would not have been acquired by a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the nature and extent of the failure.
Why it was not published: The quote contains only the clause text and does not state that it is ACL section 260(1)(a) or that it makes a failure a major failure.
The part the quote did not support: Australian Consumer Law section 260(1)(a)
What it rested on
(a) the goods would not have been acquired by a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the nature and extent of the failure; or
The Australian Consumer Law section 260(1)(e) makes it a major failure where goods are not of acceptable quality because they are unsafe.
Why it was not published: The quote gives the parenthetical text but does not identify the section number or classify it as a major failure.
The part the quote did not support: section 260(1)(e) makes it a major failure
What it rested on
(e) the goods are not of acceptable quality because they are unsafe.
The Australian Consumer Law section 260(1)(c) makes it a major failure where goods are substantially unfit for a purpose for which goods of the same kind are commonly supplied and cannot, easily and within a reasonable time, be remedied to make them fit.
Why it was not published: The quote states the clause wording but does not identify it as Australian Consumer Law section 260(1)(c) or state that it constitutes a major failure.
The part the quote did not support: The Australian Consumer Law section 260(1)(c) makes it a major failure
What it rested on
(c) the goods are substantially unfit for a purpose for which goods of the same kind are commonly supplied and they cannot, easily and within a reasonable time, be remedied to make them fit for such a purpose; or
The Australian Consumer Law section 260(2) makes an accumulation of failures a major failure where 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.
Why it was not published: The quoted paragraphs state the accumulation and reasonable-consumer conditions but do not mention section 260(2) or that they make a major failure.
The part the quote did not support: section 260(2) makes an accumulation of failures a major failure
What it rested on
(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.
A note to the Australian Consumer Law section 260(2) states that the multiple failures do not need to relate to the same guarantee.
Why it was not published: The quote gives the note text but does not identify it as a note to section 260(2) of the Australian Consumer Law.
The part the quote did not support: section 260(2)
What it rested on
Note: The multiple failures do not need to relate to the same guarantee.
The Australian Consumer Law section 268(1)(e) makes it a major failure for services where the supply of the services creates an unsafe situation.
Why it was not published: The quote gives only the text of paragraph (e) and does not state the section number or that it constitutes a major failure.
The part the quote did not support: section 268(1)(e) makes it a major failure
The Australian Consumer Law section 268(1)(a) makes it a major failure for services where the services would not have been acquired by a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the nature and extent of the failure.
Why it was not published: The quote provides only the quoted subparagraph text, not the section number or its legal characterization as a major failure.
The part the quote did not support: section 268(1)(a) makes it a major failure
What it rested on
(a) the services would not have been acquired by a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the nature and extent of the failure; or
Australian Consumer Law section 259(3) provides that where the failure cannot be remedied or is a major failure, the consumer may reject the goods.
Why it was not published: The cited quotes show the condition and a compensation remedy but do not state that the consumer may reject the goods.
The part the quote did not support: may reject the goods
What it rested on
(3) If the failure to comply with the guarantee cannot be remedied or is a major failure, the consumer may:
(b) by action against the supplier, recover compensation for any reduction in the value of the goods below the price paid or payable by the consumer for the goods.
The ACCC's documented position on major failure is that a business must not deduct an amount from a refund to take into account the use a consumer has had of the product.
Why it was not published: The quote states the no-deduction rule but does not link it to a 'major failure'.
The part the quote did not support: on major failure
What it rested on
The business must not deduct an amount from a refund to take into account the use a consumer has had of the product.
Major failure: the ACCC states that when a product or service has a minor problem, the business must fix the problem or repair the product for free.
Why it was not published: The quoted ACCC statement concerns a minor problem, not a major failure.
The part the quote did not support: Major failure
What it rested on
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.
Major failure: the ACCC states that when a product or service has a minor problem, the business does not have to offer a replacement or refund.
Why it was not published: The quotes address minor problems only and do not state anything about a major failure.
The part the quote did not support: Major failure
What it rested on
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.
Consumer Affairs Victoria states that for a major problem with a product the consumer is entitled to reject the product and choose a refund or replacement, or keep it and be compensated for any drop in value.
Why it was not published: The quotes give the rejection/refund/replacement and compensation options but do not mention that they apply to a major problem or major failure.
The part the quote did not support: for a major problem with a product
What it rested on
reject the product and choose a refund or replacement, or
keep it and the seller will compensate them for any drop in value.
Consumer Affairs Victoria states that for a minor problem with a product it is the store that chooses whether to provide a replacement, repair the product within a reasonable time, or give a refund.
Why it was not published: The cited quote states the store chooses those remedies but does not specify that this applies to a minor problem.
The part the quote did not support: for a minor problem with a product
What it rested on
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.
Consumer Affairs Victoria states that a consumer who requested or agreed to a repair of a product with a major failure does not lose their right to a refund or replacement.
Why it was not published: The quote states the consumer does not lose refund/replacement rights because the problem is still major, but it does not mention requesting or agreeing to a repair.
The part the quote did not support: who requested or agreed to a repair of a product with a major failure
What it rested on
the consumer does not lose their right to a refund or replacement. The problem with the product is still ‘major’, so they may still reject and return the product at any time.
Consumer Affairs Victoria states that a consumer who requested or agreed to a repair of a product with a major failure may still reject and return the product at any time.
Why it was not published: The quote does not mention a consumer requesting or agreeing to a repair; it only states the right to reject and return is not lost.
The part the quote did not support: requested or agreed to a repair
What it rested on
the consumer does not lose their right to a refund or replacement. The problem with the product is still ‘major’, so they may still reject and return the product at any time.
Kmart states that in some instances Kmart may offer a repair or replacement rather than a refund for a major failure.
Why it was not published: The quote states Kmart may offer repair or replacement rather than a refund but does not tie this to a major failure.
The part the quote did not support: for a major failure
What it rested on
In some instances, Kmart may offer a repair or replacement, rather than a refund.
CHOICE reports that salespeople at Harvey Norman stores that CHOICE called told CHOICE's mystery shoppers the major failure.
Why it was not published: Quotes say salespeople told CHOICE misleading things but do not mention mystery shoppers or a 'major failure.'
The part the quote did not support: told CHOICE's mystery shoppers the major failure
What it rested on
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 major failure is that after the manufacturer's warranty there is nothing the store can do because it is out of their hands.
Why it was not published: The quote gives this as an example of misleading salesperson statements but does not characterize it as the major failure.
The part the quote did not support: The major failure
What it rested on
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 major failure was reported by CHOICE as being that in many of CHOICE's calls, CHOICE was told that a consumer's rights to a remedy after the warranty period ended were decided by the system at the store.
Why it was not published: The quote states that in many calls CHOICE was told rights were decided by the system, but it does not say this was the major failure.
The part the quote did not support: major failure
What it rested on
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.
The major failure is that CHOICE reports that 73 of the 80 salespeople CHOICE spoke to offered to sell CHOICE an extended warranty.
Why it was not published: The quote supports the statistic but does not characterize it as a major failure.
The part the quote did not support: The major failure is that
What it rested on
the conversation turned immediately to the benefits of an extended warranty. In fact, 73 of the 80 salespeople we spoke to offered to sell us one.
CHOICE reported on 14 December 2023 that JB Hi-Fi was facing a class action alleging the major failure.
Why it was not published: The quote says the class action alleges the extended warranties were of little or no value, not that it alleges a 'major failure.'
The part the quote did not support: alleging the major failure
What it rested on
UPDATE 14 December, 2023: JB Hi-Fi is currently facing a class action alleging that its extended warranties were of little or no value because customers already had the same rights for free under the Australian Consumer Law.
manufacturer warranty33
Regulation 99 of the Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010 provides that the amendments made by Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Consumer Law Review) Regulations 2018 apply to warranties against defects issued on or after the day 12 months after Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Consumer Law Review) Regulations 2018 commences.
Why it was not published: The quote states the substantive rule but does not identify it as Regulation 99 of the Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010.
The part the quote did not support: Regulation 99 of the Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010 provides that
What it rested on
The amendments made by Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Consumer Law Review) Regulations 2018 apply in relation to warranties against defects issued on or after the day that is 12 months after the day that Schedule commences.
Regarding manufacturer warranty, the ACCC states that the ACCC's guide to consumer guarantees for businesses and legal practitioners does not reflect later changes.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the guide does not reflect later changes to the Australian Consumer Law but do not tie that statement to manufacturer warranty.
The part the quote did not support: Regarding manufacturer warranty
What it rested on
This guide is intended to reflect consumer law at a point in time and does not reflect changes to the Australian Consumer Law which have occurred since initial publication. These changes include:
increases to the maximum civil penalty for providing false or misleading information about the existence, exclusion or effect of the consumer guarantees or remedies.
Regarding manufacturer warranty, the ACCC states that later changes not reflected in the ACCC's guide to consumer guarantees for businesses and legal practitioners include increases to the maximum civil penalty for providing false or misleading information about the existence, exclusion or effect of the consumer guarantees or remedies.
Why it was not published: The quoted evidence supports the listed penalty change but does not connect the ACCC's statement to manufacturer warranty.
The part the quote did not support: Regarding manufacturer warranty
What it rested on
This guide is intended to reflect consumer law at a point in time and does not reflect changes to the Australian Consumer Law which have occurred since initial publication. These changes include:
increases to the maximum civil penalty for providing false or misleading information about the existence, exclusion or effect of the consumer guarantees or remedies.
A Good Guys salesperson told CHOICE that an extended warranty would be needed for a fault at three or four years.
Why it was not published: The quotes contain the extended-warranty statement and mention Good Guys staff, but none establishes that a Good Guys salesperson said it to CHOICE.
The part the quote did not support: A Good Guys salesperson told CHOICE
What it rested on
Extended warranties are optional. Suppliers must not: pressure consumers to buy an extended warranty tell a consumer that they must pay for any rights equivalent to a consumer guarantee.
"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."
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 ACCC states that a manufacturer warranty becomes a legal right once the consumer buys the product or service.
Why it was not published: The quote states a warranty becomes a legal right, but it does not specify a manufacturer warranty.
The part the quote did not support: manufacturer warranty
What it rested on
A warranty is a voluntary promise that a person or business makes when selling a product or service. Once the consumer buys the product or service, the warranty becomes a legal right. Businesses must comply with any warranties they have provided.
The ACCC gives an example involving a manufacturer warranty.
Why it was not published: The quotes mention a warranty and an example, but none states the warranty is a manufacturer warranty.
The part the quote did not support: manufacturer warranty
What it rested on
Example of having rights under consumer guarantees after a warranty is void
If the consumer doesn't do this they can no longer make a claim under the warranty when there's a problem with a product.
In the ACCC's example, a consumer fails to meet the manufacturer warranty's servicing condition.
Why it was not published: The quotes say a warranty can be voided if a consumer does not do something, but they do not specify that the failure is a manufacturer warranty's servicing condition.
The part the quote did not support: servicing condition
What it rested on
Example of having rights under consumer guarantees after a warranty is void
If the consumer doesn't do this they can no longer make a claim under the warranty when there's a problem with a product.
In the ACCC's example, the consumer can no longer claim under the manufacturer warranty.
Why it was not published: The quotes say the consumer can no longer claim under 'the warranty' but do not specify it is a manufacturer warranty.
The part the quote did not support: manufacturer warranty
What it rested on
Example of having rights under consumer guarantees after a warranty is void
If the consumer doesn't do this they can no longer make a claim under the warranty when there's a problem with a product.
In the ACCC's example about a manufacturer warranty, the consumer still holds their consumer guarantee rights.
Why it was not published: The quotes support consumer guarantees after a warranty is void, but do not state the example concerns a manufacturer warranty.
The part the quote did not support: manufacturer warranty
What it rested on
Example of having rights under consumer guarantees after a warranty is void
If the consumer doesn't do this they can no longer make a claim under the warranty when there's a problem with a product.
The ACCC states that an extended warranty or care package is usually sold separately for an extra cost.
Why it was not published: The quotes state extended warranties are usually sold separately, but do not say care packages are sold separately.
The part the quote did not support: or care package
What it rested on
An extended warranty or care package extends the length of a manufacturer's warranty.
Unlike manufacturer's warranties, which are included in the sale of the product or service, extended warranties are usually sold separately for an extra cost.
The ACCC states, on the subject of manufacturer warranty, that consumer guarantees are automatic.
Why it was not published: The quote states consumer guarantees are automatic but does not specify manufacturer warranty, only warranties in general.
The part the quote did not support: on the subject of manufacturer warranty
What it rested on
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.
Section 102(3) of the Australian Consumer Law defines a warranty against defects as a representation communicated to a consumer in connection with the supply of goods or services, at or about the time of supply.
Why it was not published: The quote states the definition but does not identify it as Section 102(3) of the Australian Consumer Law.
The part the quote did not support: Section 102(3) of the Australian Consumer Law
What it rested on
A warranty against defects is a representation communicated to a consumer in connection with the supply of goods or services, at or about the time of supply, to the effect that a person will (unconditionally or on specified conditions):
Section 102(1) of the Australian Consumer Law provides that the regulations may prescribe requirements relating to the form and content of warranties against defects.
Why it was not published: The quotes show section 102 and the prescribed-requirements text, but do not identify subsection 102(1) specifically.
The part the quote did not support: Section 102(1)
What it rested on
102 Prescribed requirements for warranties against defects
The regulations may prescribe requirements relating to the form and content of warranties against defects.
Regulation 90 of the Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010 prescribes the exact text a warranty against defects must include for the supply of goods only.
Why it was not published: The quote provides prescribed text but does not identify it as Regulation 90 of the Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010 or as for goods only.
The part the quote did not support: Regulation 90 of the Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010
What it rested on
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'.
Regulation 90 of the Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010 requires a warranty against defects to be in a document that is transparent.
Why it was not published: The quotes support the transparency requirement under heading 90 but do not name the Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010.
The part the quote did not support: Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010
What it rested on
90 Requirements for warranties against defects
a warranty against defects must be in a document that is transparent
Regulation 90 of the Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010 requires a warranty against defects to state the period or periods within which a defect must appear for the consumer to be entitled to claim.
Why it was not published: The quote states the warranty requirement but does not identify it as Regulation 90 of the Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010.
The part the quote did not support: Regulation 90 of the Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010
What it rested on
a warranty against defects must state the period or periods within which a defect in the goods or services to which the warranty relates must appear if the consumer is to be entitled to claim the warranty
Regulation 90 of the Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010 requires a warranty against defects to prominently state the name, business address, telephone number and email address of the person who gives the warranty.
Why it was not published: The quote states the warranty requirement but does not identify it as Regulation 90 of the Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010.
The part the quote did not support: Regulation 90 of the Competition and Consumer Regulations 2010
What it rested on
a warranty against defects must prominently state the following information about the person who gives the warranty; (i) the person's name; (ii) the person's business address; (iii) the person's telephone number; (iv) the person's email address (if any);
Consumer Affairs Victoria states that a warranty promising goods or services will be free from defects for a certain period is called a warranty against defects or a manufacturer's warranty.
Why it was not published: The quote only gives the name, not the quoted definitional promise of defect-free goods or services for a certain period.
The part the quote did not support: a warranty promising goods or services will be free from defects for a certain period
What it rested on
This is called a 'warranty against defects', or a 'manufacturer's warranty'.
The ACCC's guide for businesses and legal practitioners states that failing to meet the warranty against defects criteria may lead to a maximum civil penalty of $50,000 for a body corporate and $10,000 for an individual.
Why it was not published: The quote states 'these criteria' but does not identify them as the warranty against defects criteria.
The part the quote did not support: warranty against defects criteria
What it rested on
Failing to meet these criteria may lead to a maximum civil penalty of $50,000 for a body corporate and $10,000 for an individual.
Manufacturer warranty has a documented position, as stated by the ACCC's guide for businesses and legal practitioners, that businesses selling extended warranties which offer less than the consumer guarantees could risk misleading consumers into thinking they are receiving additional benefits when they are not.
Why it was not published: The quote supports the extended-warranty statement but does not mention manufacturer warranty.
The part the quote did not support: Manufacturer warranty has a documented position
What it rested on
Businesses that sell extended warranties which offer anything less than or simply mirrors what a consumer is entitled to under the consumer guarantees, could risk misleading consumers into thinking they are receiving additional benefits when they are not.
Manufacturer warranty has a documented position, as stated by the ACCC's guide for businesses and legal practitioners, that businesses selling extended warranties which simply mirror the consumer guarantees could risk misleading consumers into thinking they are receiving additional benefits when they are not.
Why it was not published: The quote addresses businesses selling extended warranties and consumer guarantees, but does not mention a manufacturer warranty position.
The part the quote did not support: Manufacturer warranty
What it rested on
Businesses that sell extended warranties which offer anything less than or simply mirrors what a consumer is entitled to under the consumer guarantees, could risk misleading consumers into thinking they are receiving additional benefits when they are not.
Salespeople at JB Hi-Fi stores told CHOICE's mystery shoppers that, concerning the manufacturer warranty, if a product is over two years old the customer has to pay for repairs themselves.
Why it was not published: The quote supports the statement about paying for repairs after two years but does not specify it was about the manufacturer warranty.
The part the quote did not support: concerning the manufacturer warranty
What it rested on
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 manufacturer warranty was described by salespeople at Good Guys stores to CHOICE's mystery shoppers as meaning that if something happened after one year, the customer would bear the cost.
Why it was not published: The quote reports the after-one-year cost statement but does not identify it as a description of the manufacturer warranty.
The part the quote did not support: manufacturer warranty
What it rested on
We called 25 Good Guys stores, of which 15 (60%) misrepresented our consumer rights. Information we were given included: "You can still contact Samsung but call-out fees and parts will be required", and "If something happened after one year unfortunately it's at your own cost."
The Good Guys states that its brochure sets out the minimum remedies it will provide for a faulty product.
Why it was not published: The quote states the minimum remedies The Good Guys will provide for a faulty product but does not mention that this is set out in a brochure.
The part the quote did not support: its brochure
What it rested on
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.
In the course of offering the manufacturer warranty, Fisher & Paykel Customer Services Pty Ltd and Domestic & General Services Ltd made false or misleading representations to consumers, according to the ACCC.
Why it was not published: The quote states the misleading representations were made in offering an extended warranty, not a manufacturer warranty.
The part the quote did not support: manufacturer warranty
What it rested on
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.
For the manufacturer warranty, a civil penalty of $200,000 was imposed on each of Fisher & Paykel Customer Services Pty Ltd and Domestic & General Services Ltd, according to the ACCC.
Why it was not published: The quote refers to an extended warranty, not a manufacturer warranty.
The part the quote did not support: manufacturer warranty
What it rested on
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.
73 of the 80 salespeople CHOICE called offered to sell CHOICE an extended warranty.
Why it was not published: The quote says CHOICE 'spoke to' the salespeople, not that CHOICE called them.
The part the quote did not support: CHOICE called
What it rested on
When we asked about consumer rights outside the manufacturer's warranty period, often the conversation turned immediately to the benefits of an extended warranty. In fact, 73 of the 80 salespeople we spoke to offered to sell us one.
CHOICE called 29 JB Hi-Fi stores regarding repair.
Why it was not published: The quote establishes CHOICE called 29 JB Hi-Fi stores about consumer rights misrepresentation, but it does not say the calls were regarding repair.
The part the quote did not support: regarding repair
What it rested on
We found that salespeople in 24 of the 29 (83%) JB Hi-Fi stores we called misrepresented our consumer rights
CHOICE reported that salespeople in 24 of the 29 JB Hi-Fi stores it called regarding repair misrepresented consumer rights.
Why it was not published: The quote says stores were called and misrepresented consumer rights but does not state the calls were regarding repair.
The part the quote did not support: regarding repair
What it rested on
We found that salespeople in 24 of the 29 (83%) JB Hi-Fi stores we called misrepresented our consumer rights
CHOICE called 26 Harvey Norman stores about repair.
Why it was not published: The quote confirms CHOICE called 26 Harvey Norman stores but does not state the calls were about repair.
The part the quote did not support: about repair
What it rested on
We called 26 Harvey Norman stores, 18 of which (69%) misrepresented our consumer rights.
18 of the 26 Harvey Norman stores that CHOICE called about repair misrepresented consumer rights.
Why it was not published: The quote states 18 of 26 Harvey Norman stores misrepresented consumer rights, but does not state the calls were about repair or manufacturer warranty.
The part the quote did not support: about repair
What it rested on
We called 26 Harvey Norman stores, 18 of which (69%) misrepresented our consumer rights.
CHOICE called 25 Good Guys stores regarding the manufacturer warranty.
Why it was not published: The quote confirms CHOICE called 25 Good Guys stores but does not state the calls were regarding the manufacturer warranty.
The part the quote did not support: regarding the manufacturer warranty
What it rested on
We called 25 Good Guys stores, of which 15 (60%) misrepresented our consumer rights.
15 of the 25 Good Guys stores that CHOICE called regarding the manufacturer warranty misrepresented consumer rights.
Why it was not published: The quote supports 15 of 25 Good Guys stores misrepresented consumer rights, but does not state the calls concerned the manufacturer warranty.
The part the quote did not support: regarding the manufacturer warranty
What it rested on
We called 25 Good Guys stores, of which 15 (60%) misrepresented our consumer rights.
minor failure13
Section 259(2) of the Australian Consumer Law provides that where a failure to comply with a guarantee can be remedied and is not a major failure, the consumer may require the supplier to remedy the failure within a reasonable time.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the provision's wording but do not identify it as Section 259(2) of the Australian Consumer Law.
The part the quote did not support: Section 259(2) of the Australian Consumer Law
What it rested on
If the failure to comply with the guarantee can be remedied and is not a major failure:
the consumer may require the supplier to remedy the failure within a reasonable time; or
Section 261 of the Australian Consumer Law allows the supplier to comply with a requirement to remedy a failure by replacing the goods with goods of an identical type.
Why it was not published: The quotes state Section 261's replacement remedy but do not establish that it applies to a minor failure.
The part the quote did not support: minor failure
What it rested on
if the failure does not relate to title—by repairing the goods; or
by replacing the goods with goods of an identical type; or
261 How suppliers may remedy a failure to comply with a guarantee
Section 261 of the Australian Consumer Law allows the supplier to comply with a requirement to remedy a failure by refunding the money paid.
Why it was not published: The cited quotes only mention repairing or replacing goods, not refunding money paid.
The part the quote did not support: by refunding the money paid
What it rested on
if the failure does not relate to title—by repairing the goods; or
by replacing the goods with goods of an identical type; or
261 How suppliers may remedy a failure to comply with a guarantee
Section 259(2)(b) of the Australian Consumer Law allows a consumer to have a failure remedied elsewhere if the supplier refuses or fails to remedy the failure within a reasonable time.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the remedial right but do not identify it as Section 259(2)(b) of the Australian Consumer Law.
The part the quote did not support: Section 259(2)(b) of the Australian Consumer Law
What it rested on
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:
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
Section 259(2)(b) of the Australian Consumer Law allows a consumer to recover all reasonable costs from the supplier if the supplier refuses or fails to remedy the failure within a reasonable time.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the cost-recovery rule but do not identify it as Section 259(2)(b) of the Australian Consumer Law.
The part the quote did not support: Section 259(2)(b) of the Australian Consumer Law
What it rested on
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:
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
Section 260(2) of the Australian Consumer Law makes a failure a major failure where it is one of two or more failures and a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with those failures taken as a whole would not have acquired the goods.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the two conditions but do not identify them as Section 260(2) of the Australian Consumer Law or as making a failure a major failure.
The part the quote did not support: Section 260(2)
What it rested on
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
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.
The ACCC states in its guide for businesses and legal practitioners that, for a minor failure, if a supplier cannot repair the goods, the consumer can have the goods fixed elsewhere and claim reasonable costs from the supplier.
Why it was not published: The cited quotes state the repair-elsewhere remedy when a supplier cannot repair, but do not state it applies for a minor failure.
The part the quote did not support: for a minor failure
What it rested on
If a supplier cannot repair the goods (for instance, because the supplier does not have the requisite parts) or cannot do so within a reasonable time, the consumer can:
have the goods fixed elsewhere and claim reasonable costs from the supplier.
The ACCC states in its guide for businesses and legal practitioners that, for a minor failure, if a supplier cannot repair the goods within a reasonable time, the consumer can have the goods fixed elsewhere and claim reasonable costs from the supplier.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the repair-elsewhere remedy if the supplier cannot repair within reasonable time, but they do not specify that this applies for a minor failure.
The part the quote did not support: for a minor failure
What it rested on
If a supplier cannot repair the goods (for instance, because the supplier does not have the requisite parts) or cannot do so within a reasonable time, the consumer can:
have the goods fixed elsewhere and claim reasonable costs from the supplier.
The Federal Court ordered Hewlett-Packard to pay a $3 million civil pecuniary penalty for the minor failure in July 2013.
Why it was not published: The quote states the penalty was for making false or misleading representations about consumer guarantee rights, not for a 'minor failure'.
The part the quote did not support: for the minor failure
What it rested on
In July 2013, the Federal Court ordered that Hewlett-Packard, a manufacturer and retailer of computer hardware, pay a $3 million civil pecuniary penalty for making false or misleading representations to consumers and retailers regarding consumer guarantee rights.
The minor failure was Hewlett-Packard's making of false or misleading representations to consumers and retailers regarding consumer guarantee rights.
Why it was not published: The quote establishes HP made false or misleading representations but does not characterize that conduct as a minor failure.
The part the quote did not support: minor failure
What it rested on
In July 2013, the Federal Court ordered that Hewlett-Packard, a manufacturer and retailer of computer hardware, pay a $3 million civil pecuniary penalty for making false or misleading representations to consumers and retailers regarding consumer guarantee rights.
The minor failure was among the representations for which Hewlett-Packard was penalised.
Why it was not published: The quotes show HP was penalised for misleading consumer guarantee representations but do not mention a 'minor failure' representation.
The part the quote did not support: minor failure
What it rested on
In July 2013, the Federal Court ordered that Hewlett-Packard, a manufacturer and retailer of computer hardware, pay a $3 million civil pecuniary penalty for making false or misleading representations to consumers and retailers regarding consumer guarantee rights.
the remedies available to consumers were limited to the remedies available at the business’ discretion
The minor failure was that the remedies available to consumers were limited to the remedies available at the business's discretion.
Why it was not published: The cited quote states the remedies limitation but does not characterize it as a minor failure.
The part the quote did not support: minor failure
What it rested on
In July 2013, the Federal Court ordered that Hewlett-Packard, a manufacturer and retailer of computer hardware, pay a $3 million civil pecuniary penalty for making false or misleading representations to consumers and retailers regarding consumer guarantee rights.
the remedies available to consumers were limited to the remedies available at the business’ discretion
CHOICE found in a shadow shop of major electrical retailers that seven in 10 stores misrepresented a customer's right to a remedy.
Why it was not published: The quote states CHOICE found seven in 10 stores misrepresented a right to a remedy, but does not mention a shadow shop or major electrical retailers.
The part the quote did not support: in a shadow shop of major electrical retailers
What it rested on
CHOICE found seven in 10 stores misrepresented a customer’s right to a remedy
motor vehicle guarantees9
The ACCC reports that on 23 November 2025 the Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury announced that the Government will develop legislative changes to the Australian Consumer Law concerning motor vehicle guarantees.
Why it was not published: The quote states the Government will develop legislative changes to the ACL generally, including penalties for consumer guarantee failures, but does not state the changes concern motor vehicle guarantees.
The part the quote did not support: concerning motor vehicle guarantees
What it rested on
on 23 November 2025, the Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury announced that the Government will develop legislative changes to the ACL, including to introduce penalties for businesses which fail to provide remedies for consumer guarantee failures.
The ACCC reports that the Government will develop legislative changes to the Australian Consumer Law to introduce penalties for businesses which fail to provide remedies for consumer guarantee failures concerning motor vehicle guarantees.
Why it was not published: The quoted announcement refers to consumer guarantee failures generally, not specifically to motor vehicle guarantees.
The part the quote did not support: concerning motor vehicle guarantees
What it rested on
on 23 November 2025, the Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury announced that the Government will develop legislative changes to the ACL, including to introduce penalties for businesses which fail to provide remedies for consumer guarantee failures.
The ACCC states that state and territory statutory warranties on second-hand cars differ in each state or territory.
Why it was not published: The quote says statutory warranties differ by state or territory but does not state they are on second-hand cars.
The part the quote did not support: on second-hand cars
What it rested on
These statutory warranties differ in each state or territory.
Consumer Affairs Victoria states that a buyer of a car or motorbike from a Victorian licensed motor car trader has three clear business days, excluding weekends and public holidays, after signing a contract to change their mind.
Why it was not published: The quote states the three-day cooling-off period but does not specify that it applies to a buyer of a car or motorbike from a Victorian licensed motor car trader.
The part the quote did not support: a buyer of a car or motorbike from a Victorian licensed motor car trader
What it rested on
You have three clear business days (excluding weekends and public holidays) after you sign a contract to change your mind.
Regarding motor vehicle guarantees, the ACCC received over 1,000 reports about second hand cars from 1 July 2024 to 30 June 2025.
Why it was not published: The quote states the ACCC received over 1,000 reports about second hand cars but does not mention motor vehicle guarantees.
The part the quote did not support: Regarding motor vehicle guarantees
What it rested on
From 1 July 2024 to 30 June 2025, the ACCC received over 1,000 reports about second hand cars.
Over half of the Consumer Protection Western Australia reports on motor vehicle guarantees said the fault arose on the day of purchase.
Why it was not published: The quote says reports about second-hand cars, not reports on motor vehicle guarantees.
The part the quote did not support: motor vehicle guarantees
What it rested on
Consumer Protection Western Australia received approximately 950 reports about second-hand cars in the 2024–25 financial year which referenced how quickly the reported fault arose after purchase. Of these reports, over half reported that the fault arose on the day of purchase, and almost 70% of the reported faults arose within one week of purchase.
Almost 70% of the reported faults in the Consumer Protection Western Australia reports on motor vehicle guarantees arose within one week of purchase.
Why it was not published: The quote supports reports about second-hand cars, not reports specifically on motor vehicle guarantees.
The part the quote did not support: motor vehicle guarantees
What it rested on
Consumer Protection Western Australia received approximately 950 reports about second-hand cars in the 2024–25 financial year which referenced how quickly the reported fault arose after purchase. Of these reports, over half reported that the fault arose on the day of purchase, and almost 70% of the reported faults arose within one week of purchase.
Motor vehicle guarantees have a practical effect: the ACCC reports that as at 30 June 2025 there are over 10,000 licensed car dealers in Australia.
Why it was not published: The cited quote reports only the number of licensed car dealers and says nothing about motor vehicle guarantees having a practical effect.
The part the quote did not support: Motor vehicle guarantees have a practical effect
What it rested on
As at 30 June 2025, there are over 10,000 licensed car dealers in Australia.
Motor vehicle guarantees can add as much as 20% to the total purchase price of a second-hand car.
Why it was not published: The quote's 20% figure is specifically for extended warranties, not motor vehicle guarantees generally.
The part the quote did not support: Motor vehicle guarantees
What it rested on
Extended warranties can reportedly add as much as 20% to the total purchase price of a second-hand car.
no refunds sign18
No refunds sign: the Australian Consumer Law as compiled to 1 July 2026 sets the maximum fine for a person other than a body corporate convicted of a false or misleading representation offence at $2,500,000.
Why it was not published: The first quote states the fine for an offence against subsection (1) but does not identify that offence as a false or misleading representation offence, so that characterization is unsupported.
The part the quote did not support: false or misleading representation offence
What it rested on
An offence against subsection (1) committed by a person other than a body corporate is punishable on conviction by a fine of not more than $2,500,000.
The maximum civil penalty for providing false or misleading information about the existence, exclusion or effect of the consumer guarantees or remedies is $1.1 million for a body corporate and $220,000 for an individual.
Sprintlaw states that a policy presented as 'No Returns On Sale Items' is fine provided the business does not mislead customers about their rights for faulty goods, while Consumer Affairs Victoria lists the sign 'No refund on sale items' among signs that are generally against the law.
Why it was not published: The Consumer Affairs Victoria quote says only 'Generally, these signs are against the law:' without listing 'No refund on sale items', so that source-specific listing is not established.
The part the quote did not support: Consumer Affairs Victoria lists the sign 'No refund on sale items' among signs that are generally against the law
What it rested on
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.
Generally, these signs are against the law:
'No refund on sale items'
Consumer Affairs Victoria states that a store cannot take away a consumer's right to a refund for a major problem by claiming a 'no refund' policy or displaying a 'no refund' sign.
Why it was not published: The quote states stores cannot take away 'this right' but does not specify that the right is to a refund for a major problem.
The part the quote did not support: for a major problem
What it rested on
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.
Consumer Affairs Victoria states that an online store's refunds and returns policy cannot take away a consumer's right to a refund for a major problem.
Why it was not published: The quote says stores cannot take away 'this right' and that it applies to online stores, but it does not specify a right to a refund for a major problem.
The part the quote did not support: for a major problem
What it rested on
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.
Section 66 of the Australian Consumer Law empowers the Commonwealth Minister to determine in writing that suppliers are required to display a notice meeting the requirements of the determination.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the Minister's power but do not identify it as Section 66 of the Australian Consumer Law.
The part the quote did not support: Section 66
What it rested on
The Commonwealth Minister may determine, in writing, that persons
who make supplies, or supplies of a specified kind, to which guarantees apply under this Division are required to display, in accordance with the determination, a notice that meets the requirements of the determination
The ACCC states that a business cannot take away a consumer's basic consumer guarantee rights by displaying a 'no refunds' sign.
Why it was not published: The quote lists displaying a 'no refunds' sign but does not state that this cannot take away consumer guarantee rights.
The part the quote did not support: cannot take away a consumer's basic consumer guarantee rights
What it rested on
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
The ACCC states that a business cannot take away a consumer's basic consumer guarantee rights by saying that refunds are not available at all after a certain number of days.
Why it was not published: The quote lists the 'no refunds' wording but does not state that the ACCC prohibits it as taking away consumer guarantee rights.
The part the quote did not support: cannot take away a consumer's basic consumer guarantee rights by saying
What it rested on
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
The ACCC's documented position on the no refunds sign is that it is against the law for businesses to mislead consumers about their rights in the ways the ACCC lists.
Why it was not published: The quote states the general unlawfulness of misleading consumers in listed ways but does not mention a no refunds sign.
The part the quote did not support: on the no refunds sign
What it rested on
It is against the law for businesses to mislead consumers about their rights in these ways.
Regarding the no refunds sign, the ACCC states that it is illegal for businesses to rely on terms and conditions which deny consumers' rights to a refund or replacement for faulty products.
Why it was not published: The quote says businesses cannot deny 'these rights' and gives no-refund examples, but does not specify refund or replacement rights for faulty products.
The part the quote did not support: a refund or replacement for faulty products
What it rested on
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’.
The ACCC and the state and territory consumer protection regulators jointly state in their consumer guarantees guide that signs and statements that limit, or seem to limit, consumers' rights are unlawful.
Why it was not published: The quote supports the unlawfulness statement but does not establish that ACCC and state/territory regulators jointly stated it.
The part the quote did not support: The ACCC and the state and territory consumer protection regulators jointly state
What it rested on
Signs and statements that limit, or seem to limit, consumers’ rights are unlawful—including ‘no refund’ signs.
The no refunds sign's documented position is that the ACCC's consumer guarantees guide states that the maximum civil penalty for providing false or misleading information about the existence, exclusion or effect of the consumer guarantees or remedies is $1.1 million for a body corporate.
Why it was not published: The quote states the ACCC guide's penalty but does not mention or entail anything about a no refunds sign's documented position.
The part the quote did not support: The no refunds sign's documented position is that
What it rested on
The maximum civil penalty for providing false or misleading information about the existence, exclusion or effect of the consumer guarantees or remedies is $1.1 million for a body corporate and $220,000 for an individual.
Section 151(1)(m) of the Australian Consumer Law makes it an offence to make a false or misleading representation concerning the existence, exclusion or effect of any condition, warranty, guarantee, right or remedy.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the offence language but do not identify it as Section 151(1)(m) of the Australian Consumer Law.
The part the quote did not support: Section 151(1)(m) of the Australian Consumer Law
What it rested on
A person commits an offence if the person, in trade or commerce, in connection with the supply or possible supply of goods or services or in connection with the promotion by any means of the supply or use of goods or services:
makes a false or misleading representation concerning the existence, exclusion or effect of any condition, warranty, guarantee, right or remedy
Section 151(6) of the Australian Consumer Law sets the maximum fine for a person other than a body corporate convicted of a false or misleading representation offence at $2,500,000.
Why it was not published: The quote supports the $2,500,000 maximum fine for a non-body-corporate person but does not establish that this is Section 151(6) of the Australian Consumer Law.
The part the quote did not support: Section 151(6) of the Australian Consumer Law
What it rested on
An offence against subsection (1) committed by a person other than a body corporate is punishable on conviction by a fine of not more than $2,500,000.
Section 151(4) of the Australian Consumer Law makes the false or misleading representation offence an offence of strict liability.
Why it was not published: The quote states that subsection (1) is an offence of strict liability, not section 151(4).
The part the quote did not support: Section 151(4)
The no refunds sign echoes Sprintlaw's statement that a business can restrict change-of-mind returns.
Why it was not published: The quote establishes Sprintlaw's statement but does not mention or connect it to any no refunds sign.
The part the quote did not support: The no refunds sign echoes
What it rested on
Put simply: you can restrict change‑of‑mind returns, but you cannot exclude statutory consumer guarantees.
The no refunds sign echoes Sprintlaw's statement that a business cannot exclude statutory consumer guarantees.
Why it was not published: The Sprintlaw quote supports the legal statement itself, but no cited quote mentions a no refunds sign or that it echoes that statement.
The part the quote did not support: The no refunds sign echoes
What it rested on
Put simply: you can restrict change‑of‑mind returns, but you cannot exclude statutory consumer guarantees.
The no refunds sign is a matter for which in 2015 the Federal Court imposed a civil penalty of $200,000 each on Fisher & Paykel Customer Services Pty Ltd and Domestic & General Services Ltd.
Why it was not published: The quote supports the $200,000 penalties on both businesses but does not mention a 'no refunds sign' or the year 2015.
The part the quote did not support: no refunds sign is a matter for which in 2015
What it rested on
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.
The no refunds sign is a matter for which the civil penalty imposed in 2015 was for making false or misleading representations in the course of offering an extended warranty to consumers.
Why it was not published: The quote supports a civil penalty for false or misleading extended warranty representations but never ties that penalty to a no refunds sign or to 2015.
The part the quote did not support: no refunds sign
What it rested on
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.
online purchases13
For online purchases, the current Australian Consumer Law was introduced on 1 January 2011.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the current Australian Consumer Law was introduced on 1 January 2011, but none mention online purchases.
The part the quote did not support: For online purchases
What it rested on
Products and services bought before 1 January 2011 aren’t covered by the current Australian Consumer Law. They may be covered by older laws.
This guide is relevant to goods and services bought before 1 January 2011, when the current law was introduced.
The ACCC's documented position on online purchases states that a consumer buying a parallel import from a seller based overseas may face practical and legal difficulties enforcing their rights against that overseas business.
Why it was not published: The quote states the difficulty for an overseas-based seller but does not identify it as the ACCC's documented position on online purchases.
The part the quote did not support: on online purchases
What it rested on
if the seller is based overseas, there may be practical and legal difficulties in enforcing their rights against an overseas business.
For online purchases, the ACCC states that ticket resellers must clearly and continuously display a statement that the service is a ticket resale service.
Why it was not published: The quotes state ticket resellers must display the statement, but do not mention online purchases.
The part the quote did not support: For online purchases
What it rested on
Ticket resellers must clearly and continuously display:
a statement that says “This is a ticket resale service. You are not buying from a primary ticket provider.”
For online purchases, the ACCC states that ticket resellers must clearly and continuously display a statement that the buyer is not buying from a primary ticket provider.
Why it was not published: The quotes require the statement but do not state or entail that the requirement is limited to online purchases.
The part the quote did not support: For online purchases
What it rested on
Ticket resellers must clearly and continuously display:
a statement that says “This is a ticket resale service. You are not buying from a primary ticket provider.”
Kmart states that, for online purchases, a customer returning a marketplace product for change of mind bears the return costs.
Why it was not published: The quote says return costs are incurred by the customer but does not state this applies specifically to online purchases or change-of-mind returns.
The part the quote did not support: for change of mind
What it rested on
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 states that, for online purchases, a marketplace seller may charge a fee to redeliver a product where the customer returns it and the seller declines the return.
Why it was not published: The quote does not specify that the purchase was made online.
The part the quote did not support: for online purchases
What it rested on
If you return a product to a marketplace seller and they determine that it does not meet these conditions and decline your return, the seller may charge a fee to redeliver the product to you.
eBay states that the eBay Money Back Guarantee for online purchases is offered in addition to a buyer's rights under the Australian Consumer Law.
Why it was not published: The quote states the guarantee is offered in addition to Australian Consumer Law rights but does not specify it is for online purchases.
The part the quote did not support: for online purchases
What it rested on
eBay Money Back Guarantee is offered in addition to your rights under the Australian Consumer Law.
CHOICE reports that online purchases on eBay had return processes that survey respondents were unhappy with.
Why it was not published: The quote says customers were unhappy with eBay's return processes, but does not state that these were survey respondents.
The part the quote did not support: survey respondents
What it rested on
Sentiments were less positive towards rival marketplace Ebay – customers were unhappy with its return processes and the after-sale service they had received from vendors selling on the platform.
CHOICE reports that online purchases from vendors on eBay had after-sale service that survey respondents were unhappy with.
Why it was not published: The quote says customers were unhappy, but does not say survey respondents.
The part the quote did not support: survey respondents
What it rested on
Sentiments were less positive towards rival marketplace Ebay – customers were unhappy with its return processes and the after-sale service they had received from vendors selling on the platform.
The ACCC took action against ticket reseller Viagogo in 2017 for misleading consumers in online purchases.
Why it was not published: The quote says Viagogo misled consumers when reselling tickets, but does not state the misleading occurred in online purchases.
The part the quote did not support: online purchases
What it rested on
In 2017 we took action against ticket reseller Viagogo for misleading consumers when reselling tickets for live music and sports events.
The misleading of consumers in online purchases occurred when Viagogo was reselling tickets for live music and sports events.
Why it was not published: The quote states Viagogo misled consumers when reselling tickets, but does not mention online purchases.
The part the quote did not support: in online purchases
What it rested on
In 2017 we took action against ticket reseller Viagogo for misleading consumers when reselling tickets for live music and sports events.
The ACCC states that the Federal Court found Viagogo made false or misleading representations to online purchasers that Viagogo was the official seller of tickets to particular events.
Why it was not published: The quote says representations were made to 'consumers,' not specifically to 'online purchasers.'
The part the quote did not support: online purchasers
What it rested on
The Federal Court found that Viagogo made false or misleading representations to consumers that it was the ‘official’ seller of tickets to particular events, that tickets were scarce, and that consumers could buy tickets for a particular price when this was not the case.
The ACCC states that the Federal Court found Viagogo made false or misleading representations to online purchasers that tickets were scarce.
Why it was not published: The quote says 'consumers' but does not state they were 'online purchasers.'
The part the quote did not support: online purchasers
What it rested on
The Federal Court found that Viagogo made false or misleading representations to consumers that it was the ‘official’ seller of tickets to particular events, that tickets were scarce, and that consumers could buy tickets for a particular price when this was not the case.
overseas purchases9
The ACCC states that for overseas purchases, the seller of a parallel import must offer a repair, replacement or refund if the consumer's usual rights are not met.
Why it was not published: The quote specifically addresses buying parallel imports, not overseas purchases generally.
The part the quote did not support: overseas purchases
What it rested on
When a consumer buys a parallel import, they have all their usual rights. The seller must offer a repair, replacement or refund if these rights are not met.
The ACCC states that manufacturers and their local authorised sellers do not have to honour warranties for overseas purchases if the terms of the warranty exclude overseas purchases.
Why it was not published: The quote only addresses parallel imports, not all overseas purchases.
The part the quote did not support: overseas purchases
What it rested on
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.
The ACCC states that manufacturers and their local authorised sellers do not have to provide support or spare parts under warranties for overseas purchases if the terms of the warranty exclude overseas purchases.
Why it was not published: The quoted ACCC statement specifically refers to 'parallel imports', not 'overseas purchases' in general.
The part the quote did not support: overseas purchases
What it rested on
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.
LegalVision states that your rights as a consumer when making overseas purchases remain the same as when buying any other product.
Why it was not published: The quote is specifically about buying a parallel import, not overseas purchases generally.
The part the quote did not support: overseas purchases
What it rested on
When you buy a parallel import, your rights as a consumer remain the same as if you were buying any other product.
LegalVision states that many consumers who make overseas purchases believe they are still entitled to the warranties promised by the product.
Why it was not published: The quote says consumers who purchase parallel imports, not consumers who make overseas purchases generally.
The part the quote did not support: make overseas purchases
What it rested on
Many consumers who purchase parallel imports believe that they are still entitled to the warranties and customer support services promised by the product.
LegalVision states that many consumers who make overseas purchases believe they are still entitled to the customer support services promised by the product.
Why it was not published: The quote specifies consumers who purchase parallel imports, not all consumers who make overseas purchases.
The part the quote did not support: make overseas purchases
What it rested on
Many consumers who purchase parallel imports believe that they are still entitled to the warranties and customer support services promised by the product.
Sprintlaw states that an overseas purchase is a genuine product.
Why it was not published: The quote only states a parallel import is a genuine product, not that an overseas purchase generally is.
The part the quote did not support: overseas purchase
What it rested on
A parallel import is a genuine product that is imported into Australia and sold here
Sprintlaw states that an overseas purchase is imported into Australia.
Why it was not published: The quote states a parallel import is imported into Australia, not that an overseas purchase is imported.
The part the quote did not support: overseas purchase
What it rested on
A parallel import is a genuine product that is imported into Australia and sold here
Sprintlaw states that an overseas purchase is sold in Australia outside the authorised distribution network.
Why it was not published: The quote defines a parallel import as imported and sold in Australia but does not state it is sold outside the authorised distribution network.
The part the quote did not support: outside the authorised distribution network
What it rested on
A parallel import is a genuine product that is imported into Australia and sold here
product recall19
The product recall was permanent.
Why it was not published: The quote states a permanent ban, not that the product recall was permanent.
The part the quote did not support: product recall was permanent
What it rested on
A permanent, Australia-wide ban on small, high-powered magnets came into effect on 15 November 2012.
The product recall was Australia-wide.
Why it was not published: The quote states an Australia-wide ban, not that the product recall was Australia-wide.
The part the quote did not support: product recall
What it rested on
A permanent, Australia-wide ban on small, high-powered magnets came into effect on 15 November 2012.
The product recall applied to small, high-powered magnets.
Why it was not published: The quote states a ban on small high-powered magnets, not that a product recall applied to them.
The part the quote did not support: product recall applied
What it rested on
A permanent, Australia-wide ban on small, high-powered magnets came into effect on 15 November 2012.
The product recall came into effect on 15 November 2012.
Why it was not published: The quote states a ban, not a product recall, so the specific claim overreaches.
The part the quote did not support: product recall
What it rested on
A permanent, Australia-wide ban on small, high-powered magnets came into effect on 15 November 2012.
Section 128(2) of the Australian Consumer Law requires a person who voluntarily recalls consumer goods to give the Commonwealth Minister a written notice.
Why it was not published: The quotes support a section 128 notification requirement and written notice obligation, but do not identify subsection (2).
The part the quote did not support: Section 128(2)
What it rested on
128 Notification requirements for a voluntary recall of consumer goods
The person must, within 2 days after taking the action, give the Commonwealth Minister a written notice that complies with subsection (7).
Section 128(2) of the Australian Consumer Law requires that the written notice be given within 2 days after the person voluntarily recalls consumer goods.
Why it was not published: The quotes show a section 128 requirement for a voluntary recall but do not identify subsection 128(2) or the Australian Consumer Law.
The part the quote did not support: Section 128(2) of the Australian Consumer Law
What it rested on
128 Notification requirements for a voluntary recall of consumer goods
The person must, within 2 days after taking the action, give the Commonwealth Minister a written notice that complies with subsection (7).
Section 122(1)(c) of the Australian Consumer Law conditions a compulsory recall notice on it appearing to the responsible Minister that one or more suppliers have not taken satisfactory action to prevent the goods causing injury.
Why it was not published: The quote contains the condition wording but does not identify Section 122(1)(c) or the Australian Consumer Law.
The part the quote did not support: Section 122(1)(c) of the Australian Consumer Law
What it rested on
it appears to the responsible Minister that one or more suppliers of such goods have not taken satisfactory action to prevent those goods causing injury to any person.
Section 123(1)(c) of the Australian Consumer Law allows a recall notice to require a supplier to inform the public.
Why it was not published: The quotes mention informing the public via a notice but do not identify the cited section or the Australian Consumer Law.
The part the quote did not support: Section 123(1)(c) of the Australian Consumer Law
What it rested on
inform the public, or a class of persons specified in the notice, that the supplier undertakes to do whichever of the following the supplier thinks is appropriate:
refund to a person to whom the goods were supplied (whether by the supplier or by another person) the price of the goods.
The information that a recall notice under section 123(1)(c) of the Australian Consumer Law may require a supplier to give to the public is that the supplier undertakes to do whichever of repairing, replacing or refunding the supplier thinks is appropriate.
Why it was not published: The quotes mention informing the public and a refund, but they do not include repairing or replacing as options.
The part the quote did not support: repairing, replacing or refunding
What it rested on
inform the public, or a class of persons specified in the notice, that the supplier undertakes to do whichever of the following the supplier thinks is appropriate:
refund to a person to whom the goods were supplied (whether by the supplier or by another person) the price of the goods.
Section 123(4) of the Australian Consumer Law lets a recall notice specify that a refund may be reduced for the use a person has had of the goods where more than 12 months have elapsed since they acquired them from the supplier.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the refund-reduction and 12-month rule but do not identify it as Section 123(4) of the Australian Consumer Law.
The part the quote did not support: Section 123(4) of the Australian Consumer Law
What it rested on
a period of more than 12 months has elapsed since a person (whether or not the person to whom the refund is to be made) acquired the goods from the supplier;
the amount of a refund may be reduced by the supplier by an amount calculated in a manner specified in the notice that is attributable to the use which a person has had of the goods.
Section 124(4) of the Australian Consumer Law requires the supplier to pay the cost of a recall repair or replacement, including any necessary transportation costs.
Why it was not published: The quote supports the payment obligation but does not identify Section 124(4) or recall context.
The part the quote did not support: Section 124(4) of the Australian Consumer Law
What it rested on
the cost of the repair or replacement, including any necessary transportation costs, must be paid by the supplier.
The ACCC states that a supplier conducting a recall is responsible no matter where it sits in the supply chain, whether manufacturer, importer, distributor or retailer.
Why it was not published: The quote supports the responsibility language but is not marked as an ACCC statement.
The part the quote did not support: The ACCC states
What it rested on
You are responsible no matter where you are in the supply chain – manufacturer, importer, distributor or retailer.
The Takata airbag recall is the largest car-related recall in Australia.
Why it was not published: The quote says 'This is the largest car-related recall in Australia' but never identifies the recall as the Takata airbag recall.
The part the quote did not support: Takata airbag recall
What it rested on
This is the largest car-related recall in Australia, affecting two in every seven vehicles.
The Takata airbag recall affects two in every seven vehicles.
Why it was not published: The quote says the largest car-related recall in Australia affects two in every seven vehicles, but it does not name the Takata airbag recall.
The part the quote did not support: The Takata airbag recall
What it rested on
This is the largest car-related recall in Australia, affecting two in every seven vehicles.
In the product recall, 23 deaths worldwide have been linked to Takata airbags.
Why it was not published: The quote states 23 deaths worldwide linked to 'the airbags' but does not name Takata.
The part the quote did not support: Takata airbags
What it rested on
There have been 23 deaths and 230 injuries worldwide linked to the airbags, including one death and one serious injury in Australia.
In the product recall, 230 injuries worldwide have been linked to Takata airbags.
Why it was not published: The quote only says 'the airbags' and does not specify that the 230 injuries were linked to Takata airbags.
The part the quote did not support: Takata airbags
What it rested on
There have been 23 deaths and 230 injuries worldwide linked to the airbags, including one death and one serious injury in Australia.
In the product recall, one death in Australia has been linked to Takata airbags.
Why it was not published: The quote links one death in Australia to 'the airbags' but does not name Takata.
The part the quote did not support: Takata airbags
What it rested on
There have been 23 deaths and 230 injuries worldwide linked to the airbags, including one death and one serious injury in Australia.
In the product recall, one serious injury in Australia has been linked to Takata airbags.
Why it was not published: The quote links one serious injury in Australia to 'the airbags' but does not name them as Takata airbags.
The part the quote did not support: Takata airbags
What it rested on
There have been 23 deaths and 230 injuries worldwide linked to the airbags, including one death and one serious injury in Australia.
The ACCC states that the Takata airbag recall involves more than 3 million vehicles.
Why it was not published: The quote supports the recall involving more than 3 million vehicles but does not establish that the ACCC stated it.
The part the quote did not support: The ACCC states
What it rested on
The Takata airbag recall is the most significant compulsory recall in Australia’s history, involving more than 3 million vehicles.
proof of purchase6
Proof of purchase has a documented position from CHOICE.
Why it was not published: The cited quote is a statement by Grant Rasmussen of the Queensland Office of Fair Trading, not a position by CHOICE.
The part the quote did not support: from CHOICE
What it rested on
“There’s nothing in legislation that prevents retailers from providing receipts that may fade,” says Grant Rasmussen, manager of investigations at the Queensland Office of Fair Trading.
The Good Guys states that a customer seeking a copy of an older in-store tax invoice will be required to show ID.
Why it was not published: The quote only says ID and transaction date are required to search for an old tax invoice; it does not mention providing a copy or an in-store invoice.
The part the quote did not support: copy of an older in-store tax invoice
What it rested on
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 states that the purpose of showing ID and having the transaction date is so the store can search for the older in-store tax invoice.
Why it was not published: The quote says only 'an old tax invoice,' not an 'in-store' one.
The part the quote did not support: in-store
What it rested on
You will be required to show your ID and have the transaction date in order for us to search for an old tax invoice.
Officeworks states that a change of mind return requires satisfactory proof of purchase.
Why it was not published: The quote only states a satisfactory proof of purchase is required, but does not specify this applies to change of mind returns.
The part the quote did not support: change of mind return
What it rested on
You produce a satisfactory proof of purchase (being your original register receipt or online proof of purchase, such as a tax invoice)
Woolworths offered to swap the shadow shopper's faulty product for a new one without proof of purchase.
Why it was not published: The quote says Woolworths offered to swap Lisa's faulty product, but does not identify Lisa as the shadow shopper.
The part the quote did not support: shadow shopper's
What it rested on
Woolworths offered to provide a copy of the receipt if the transaction time was available, but otherwise offered to swap Lisa’s faulty product for a new one without proof of purchase.
CHOICE reports that a Myer customer service agent acknowledged to its shadow shopper that receipts fade and do not last forever.
Why it was not published: The quote states the agent acknowledged the receipts fade but does not state it was said to CHOICE's shadow shopper.
The part the quote did not support: to its shadow shopper
What it rested on
“The receipts do fade, they don’t last forever,” a Myer customer service agent acknowledged.
reasonable time6
The Australian Consumer Law section 62 guarantees that services will be supplied within a reasonable time where the time for supply is not fixed by the contract and is not to be determined in a manner agreed by the consumer and supplier.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the guarantee and conditions but do not identify them as Australian Consumer Law section 62.
The part the quote did not support: The Australian Consumer Law section 62
What it rested on
(i) is not fixed by the contract for the supply of the services; or
(ii) is not to be determined in a manner agreed to by the consumer and supplier;
there is a guarantee that the services will be supplied within a reasonable time.
The Australian Consumer Law section 259(2)(a) provides that where a failure can be remedied and is not a major failure, the consumer may require the supplier to remedy the failure within a reasonable time.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the substantive provision but do not identify it as Australian Consumer Law section 259(2)(a).
The part the quote did not support: Australian Consumer Law section 259(2)(a)
What it rested on
(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; or
The Australian Consumer Law section 262(2) defines the rejection period for goods.
Why it was not published: The quote gives subsection (2)'s definition but does not identify it as Australian Consumer Law section 262(2).
The part the quote did not support: Australian Consumer Law section 262(2)
What it rested on
(2) The rejection period for goods is the period from the time of the supply of the goods to the consumer within which it would be reasonable to expect the relevant failure to comply with a guarantee referred to in section 259(1)(b) to become apparent having regard to:
The Australian Consumer Law section 262(2) directs that the rejection period be assessed having regard to the type of goods, the use a consumer is likely to put them to, the length of time it is reasonable for them to be used, and the amount of use it is reasonable for them to be put to before a failure becomes apparent.
Why it was not published: The quotes list the relevant factors but do not mention section 262(2) or tie them to the rejection period.
The part the quote did not support: The Australian Consumer Law section 262(2) directs that the rejection period be assessed
What it rested on
(a) the type of goods; and
(b) the use to which a consumer is likely to put them; and
(c) the length of time for which it is reasonable for them to be used; and
(d) the amount of use to which it is reasonable for them to be put before such a failure becomes apparent.
Kmart states that reasonable time for repair is a 2-year warranty period.
Why it was not published: The quote only states white goods have in-home repair service under a 2-year warranty, not that Kmart states the reasonable time for repair is a 2-year warranty period.
The part the quote did not support: reasonable time for repair is a 2-year warranty period
What it rested on
White goods come with an in-home repair service for faulty or damaged products, under the 2-year warranty period.
Kmart states that reasonable time for repair includes an in-home repair service for faulty or damaged white goods.
Why it was not published: The quote says white goods come with an in-home repair service under warranty, but does not state that reasonable time for repair includes such service.
The part the quote did not support: reasonable time for repair includes
What it rested on
White goods come with an in-home repair service for faulty or damaged products, under the 2-year warranty period.
refund5
BIG W's returns page states that for a major problem the customer is entitled to a replacement, repair or refund.
Why it was not published: The BIG W quote only mentions replacement, while the full replacement/repair/refund entitlement is from ACCC, not BIG W's returns page.
The part the quote did not support: BIG W's returns page states that for a major problem the customer is entitled to a replacement, repair or refund
What it rested on
When a business sells a product with a major problem, or a product that later develops a major problem, it must give the consumer the choice of a:
replacement of the same type of product.
If the problem is major, you are entitled to a replacement, repair or refund.
The ACCC states that when a business sells a product with a major problem it must give the consumer the choice of a refund or a replacement of the same type of product.
Why it was not published: The quoted evidence only mentions a replacement of the same type, not a refund.
The part the quote did not support: refund
What it rested on
When a business sells a product with a major problem, or a product that later develops a major problem, it must give the consumer the choice of a:
replacement of the same type of product.
The Australian Consumer Law provides that where a consumer rejects goods, the supplier must give a refund or a replacement in accordance with an election made by the consumer.
Why it was not published: The quotes mandate replacement in accordance with the consumer's election but do not state any obligation to give a refund.
The part the quote did not support: refund
What it rested on
The supplier must, in accordance with an election made by the consumer:
replace the rejected goods with goods of the same type, and of similar value, if such goods are reasonably available to the supplier.
The Australian Consumer Law provides that a consumer may take action against a supplier of goods whether or not the goods are in their original packaging.
Why it was not published: The quote says the consumer may take action 'under this section' but does not state the action is against a supplier of goods.
The part the quote did not support: against a supplier of goods
What it rested on
The consumer may take action under this section whether or not the goods are in their original packaging.
CHOICE reports that an Origin Energy spokesperson said the company is in the process of refunding affected customers an average amount of around $60.
Why it was not published: The quote gives the statement but does not identify the speaker as an Origin Energy spokesperson.
The part the quote did not support: an Origin Energy spokesperson said
What it rested on
“We have since made improvements and are in the process of refunding these customers an average amount of around $60.”
repair10
On the matter of repair, CHOICE states that for a major fault with a product the choice of remedy is the consumer's.
Why it was not published: The CHOICE quote says the retailer must offer replace, repair or refund for a major fault, but the statement that the choice of remedy is the consumer's comes from the ACCC quote, not CHOICE.
The part the quote did not support: CHOICE states that for a major fault with a product the choice of remedy is the consumer's
What it rested on
The business does not have to offer a replacement or refund for a minor problem, although it can choose to do this.
According to the ACL, a retailer must offer to replace, repair or refund your money in the case of a major fault with a product.
the retailer must offer to fix it, replace it or give you your money back – the choice of remedy is yours
A Harvey Norman salesperson told CHOICE that after the manufacturer's warranty, there is nothing the store can do about the repair.
Why it was not published: The CHOICE quote says 'some salespeople' told them this, but does not specifically identify a Harvey Norman salesperson.
The part the quote did not support: Harvey Norman
What it rested on
Businesses must not tell consumers to take the problem to the manufacturer or importer.
Some salespeople told us misleading things including, “After the manufacturer’s warranty there’s nothing we can do, it’s out of our hands.”
Consumer Affairs Victoria states that when a product has a minor problem, the store may choose to replace the product.
Why it was not published: The quotes say the store chooses whether to repair, but they do not state it may choose to replace or mention a minor problem.
The part the quote did not support: may choose to replace the product
What it rested on
Consumers must give the supplier the chance to fix the problem. The store chooses whether to:
repair the product within a reasonable time, or
Consumer Affairs Victoria states that when a product has a minor problem, the store may choose to repair the product.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the store chooses to repair for a problem, but do not mention a minor problem.
The part the quote did not support: minor problem
What it rested on
Consumers must give the supplier the chance to fix the problem. The store chooses whether to:
repair the product within a reasonable time, or
Consumer Affairs Victoria states that when a product has a minor problem, the store may choose to refund the product.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the store chooses whether to repair but do not mention refunds or minor problems.
The part the quote did not support: the store may choose to refund the product
What it rested on
Consumers must give the supplier the chance to fix the problem. The store chooses whether to:
repair the product within a reasonable time, or
The Australian Consumer Law provides that a supplier required to remedy a failure to comply with a guarantee may comply by refunding.
Why it was not published: The cited quotes state the supplier may comply by repairing or replacing, but do not mention refunding.
The part the quote did not support: by refunding
What it rested on
the supplier may comply with the requirement:
if the failure does not relate to title—by repairing the goods; or
by replacing the goods with goods of an identical type; or
The ACCC states that a repair notice covering refurbished goods or parts must include specific wording that goods presented for repair may be replaced by refurbished goods of the same type rather than being repaired.
Why it was not published: The quote provides the specified wording but does not state that a repair notice must include it.
The part the quote did not support: must include
What it rested on
"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."
A Harvey Norman salesperson told CHOICE that after the manufacturer's warranty there is nothing the store can do because it is out of their hands.
Why it was not published: The quote says some salespeople told CHOICE this, but it does not identify any as from Harvey Norman.
The part the quote did not support: A Harvey Norman salesperson
What it rested on
Some salespeople told us misleading things including, “After the manufacturer’s warranty there’s nothing we can do, it’s out of our hands.”
CHOICE reports that in a mystery shop of 80 Harvey Norman, JB Hi-Fi and The Good Guys stores, more than seven in ten stores actively misrepresented a consumer's right to repair if their product developed a fault outside the warranty period.
Why it was not published: The quotes say stores misrepresented consumers' rights to a remedy, not specifically a right to repair.
The part the quote did not support: right to repair
What it rested on
Last year, we mystery-shopped 80 Harvey Norman, JB Hi-Fi and The Good Guys stores across the country.
Shockingly, more than seven in 10 (71%) stores in our mystery shop actively misrepresented a consumer’s rights to a remedy if their product developed a fault outside the warranty period.
CHOICE called 26 Harvey Norman stores about repair.
Why it was not published: The quote confirms CHOICE called 26 Harvey Norman stores but does not state the calls were about repair.
The part the quote did not support: about repair
What it rested on
We called 26 Harvey Norman stores, 18 of which (69%) misrepresented our consumer rights.
replacement4
The ACCC states that the mandatory text a business must include with a warranty against defects for the supply of goods says the consumer is entitled to a replacement or refund for a major failure.
Why it was not published: The quote states the consumer entitlement but does not say this is mandatory text for a warranty against defects.
The part the quote did not support: mandatory text a business must include with a warranty against defects for the supply of goods
What it rested on
You are entitled to a replacement or refund for a major failure and compensation for any other reasonably foreseeable loss or damage.
The ACCC states that a replacement to the Australian Consumer Law was made since the ACCC's guide was first published.
Why it was not published: The quotes state that changes to the Australian Consumer Law occurred, not that a replacement was made.
The part the quote did not support: a replacement to the Australian Consumer Law was made
What it rested on
does not reflect changes to the Australian Consumer Law which have occurred since initial publication. These changes include:
clarification that multiple minor failures with a good or service will constitute a major failure to comply with a consumer guarantee
The ACCC states that the replacement clarifies that multiple minor failures with a good or service will constitute a major failure to comply with a consumer guarantee.
Why it was not published: The quotes state that changes include a clarification, but do not mention a replacement clarifying the law.
The part the quote did not support: the replacement clarifies
What it rested on
does not reflect changes to the Australian Consumer Law which have occurred since initial publication. These changes include:
clarification that multiple minor failures with a good or service will constitute a major failure to comply with a consumer guarantee
eBay states that a buyer whose purchase arrives faulty or does not match the listing may agree with the seller on a replacement instead of a refund.
Why it was not published: The quote supports agreeing on a replacement instead of a refund but does not state the faulty or not-as-described precondition.
The part the quote did not support: whose purchase arrives faulty or does not match the listing
What it rested on
Alternatively, you may agree with the seller on another solution, such as a partial refund while you keep the item or a replacement instead of a refund.
sale items11
The ACCC advises consumers rejecting sale items to explain that they are doing so because of their rights under the Australian Consumer Law rather than under the business's change of mind returns policy.
Why it was not published: The quote advises explaining rejection of the product, not specifically sale items.
The part the quote did not support: sale items
What it rested on
explain that you are rejecting the product and requesting a remedy because of your rights under the Australian Consumer Law, and not your rights under the business’s change of mind returns policy.
Section 54(4) of the Australian Consumer Law provides that goods are taken to be of acceptable quality where the only reasons they are not of acceptable quality were specifically drawn to the consumer's attention before the consumer agreed to the supply.
Why it was not published: The quote states the acceptable-quality exception but does not identify it as Section 54(4) of the Australian Consumer Law.
The part the quote did not support: Section 54(4)
What it rested on
the only reason or reasons why they are not of acceptable quality were specifically drawn to the consumer’s attention before the consumer agreed to the supply
Section 54(5) of the Australian Consumer Law treats the reasons goods displayed for sale are not of acceptable quality as having been drawn to a consumer's attention if they were disclosed on a written notice displayed with the goods that was transparent.
Why it was not published: The quote states the disclosure rule but does not identify it as Section 54(5) of the Australian Consumer Law.
The part the quote did not support: Section 54(5) of the Australian Consumer Law
What it rested on
the reason or reasons why they are not of acceptable quality are taken, for the purposes of subsection (4), to have been specifically drawn to a consumer’s attention if those reasons were disclosed on a written notice that was displayed with the goods and that was transparent
LegalVision states that if a sale item has a minor problem, the supplier can elect to repair that sale item.
Why it was not published: The quote says the supplier can select to repair in 'these circumstances' but does not specify that those circumstances are a minor problem.
The part the quote did not support: minor problem
What it rested on
In these circumstances, the supplier can select to repair the item, provided repair is possible. A consumer is not entitled to reject the product and request a refund.
LegalVision states that if a sale item has a minor problem, the consumer is not entitled to reject that sale item and request a refund.
Why it was not published: The quote says a consumer cannot reject the product in "these circumstances," but does not state those circumstances involve a sale item with a minor problem.
The part the quote did not support: if a sale item has a minor problem
What it rested on
In these circumstances, the supplier can select to repair the item, provided repair is possible. A consumer is not entitled to reject the product and request a refund.
Kmart states that its change of mind returns for sale items require the product to be returned within 60 days of purchase.
Why it was not published: The cited quote states a 60-day return window generally for change-of-mind returns, but does not specifically mention sale items.
The part the quote did not support: for sale items
What it rested on
You must return the product/s within 60 days of purchase, or 365 days if you are a OnePass Member
Kmart states that its change of mind returns for sale items require the product to be returned within 365 days for a OnePass Member.
Why it was not published: The quote states the 365-day OnePass return window for product/s but does not specify that it applies to sale items.
The part the quote did not support: for sale items
What it rested on
You must return the product/s within 60 days of purchase, or 365 days if you are a OnePass Member
Bunnings states that sale items that Bunnings excludes from change of mind refunds can still be returned if they are faulty.
Why it was not published: The quote says 'These products' can be returned if faulty but does not identify them as sale items excluded from change of mind refunds.
The part the quote did not support: sale items that Bunnings excludes from change of mind refunds
What it rested on
These products can still be returned if they are faulty, not fit for purpose or do not match the sample or description.
Bunnings states that sale items that Bunnings excludes from change of mind refunds can still be returned if they are not fit for purpose.
Why it was not published: The quote says 'These products' can be returned if not fit for purpose, but it never identifies them as sale items excluded from change of mind refunds.
The part the quote did not support: sale items that Bunnings excludes from change of mind refunds
What it rested on
These products can still be returned if they are faulty, not fit for purpose or do not match the sample or description.
Bunnings states that sale items that Bunnings excludes from change of mind refunds can still be returned if they do not match the sample or description.
Why it was not published: The quote says 'these products' can be returned for not matching description, but it does not identify those products as sale items excluded from change of mind refunds.
The part the quote did not support: sale items that Bunnings excludes from change of mind refunds
What it rested on
These products can still be returned if they are faulty, not fit for purpose or do not match the sample or description.
Sprintlaw states that a business can refuse refunds for change of mind on sale items provided the business's own policy does not promise otherwise.
Why it was not published: The quote supports refusing change-of-mind refunds generally but does not mention sale items.
The part the quote did not support: on sale items
What it rested on
You can refuse refunds for change of mind, provided your own policy doesn’t promise otherwise.
services guarantees20
The subsection added by the Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 6) Act 2020 to Australian Consumer Law section 268 makes two or more services guarantee failures a major failure where a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with them would not have acquired the services.
Why it was not published: The quotes only refer to 'section 268 of Schedule 2' and do not identify Schedule 2 as the Australian Consumer Law.
The part the quote did not support: Australian Consumer Law
What it rested on
38 At the end of section 268 of Schedule 2
(2) A failure to comply with a guarantee referred to in section 267(1)(b) that applies to a supply of services is also a major failure if:
(b) the services would not have been acquired by a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the nature and extent of those failures, taken as a whole.
The amendments made by Part 1 of Schedule 4 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 6) Act 2020 apply in relation to a services supplied under a contract entered into on or after the day that that Part commences.
The Australian Consumer Law provides that the multiple-failure amendments made by Part 1 of Schedule 4 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 6) Act 2020 apply only to services supplied under a contract entered into on or after the day that Part commences.
Why it was not published: The quote states the amendments apply in relation to services under contracts entered into on or after commencement, but it does not state they apply only to those services.
The part the quote did not support: only
What it rested on
The amendments made by Part 1 of Schedule 4 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2020 Measures No. 6) Act 2020 apply in relation to services supplied under a contract entered into on or after the day that that Part commences.
Schedule 9 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Australian Consumer Law Review) Act 2018 made services guarantee amendments.
Why it was not published: The quote confirms Schedule 9 made amendments applying to services contracts but does not state they are guarantee amendments.
The part the quote did not support: services guarantee amendments
What it rested on
The amendments made by Schedule 9 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Australian Consumer Law Review) Act 2018 apply in relation to services supplied under a contract entered into on or after the day that Schedule commences.
The Australian Consumer Law provides that services guarantee amendments made by Schedule 9 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Australian Consumer Law Review) Act 2018 apply only to services supplied under a contract entered into on or after the day that Schedule 9 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Australian Consumer Law Review) Act 2018 commences.
Why it was not published: The quote says the amendments apply in relation to such services but does not state they apply only to them.
The part the quote did not support: apply only to services supplied under a contract entered into on or after the day that Schedule 9 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Australian Consumer Law Review) Act 2018 commences
What it rested on
The amendments made by Schedule 9 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Australian Consumer Law Review) Act 2018 apply in relation to services supplied under a contract entered into on or after the day that Schedule commences.
The ACCC says warranties cannot replace or take away consumer guarantees.
Why it was not published: The quote stating warranties cannot replace or take away rights is from legalvision.com.au, not the ACCC, and the ACCC quote only says warranties are additional to consumer guarantees.
The part the quote did not support: The ACCC says
What it rested on
Consumer guarantees are warranties that all consumers can rely on when making a purchase.
Warranties are voluntary and are additional to consumer guarantees
Warranties can't replace, change or take away a consumer's basic rights.
Australian Consumer Law section 60 provides a guarantee that services supplied in trade or commerce to a consumer will be rendered with due care and skill.
Why it was not published: The quotes establish a section 60 guarantee as to due care and skill but do not name the Australian Consumer Law.
The part the quote did not support: Australian Consumer Law
What it rested on
60 Guarantee as to due care and skill
If a person supplies, in trade or commerce, services to a consumer, there is a guarantee that the services will be rendered with due care and skill.
Australian Consumer Law section 61(1) provides a guarantee that any product resulting from services acquired for a particular purpose made known to the supplier will be reasonably fit for that purpose.
Why it was not published: The quotes state a guarantee of fitness for 'that purpose' but do not state the precondition that the services were acquired for a particular purpose made known to the supplier.
The part the quote did not support: services acquired for a particular purpose made known to the supplier
What it rested on
61 Guarantees as to fitness for a particular purpose etc.
there is a guarantee that the services, and any product resulting from the services, will be reasonably fit for that purpose.
Australian Consumer Law section 61(4) excludes the fitness-for-purpose services guarantee from applying to a supply of services of a professional nature by a qualified architect or engineer.
Why it was not published: The quotes establish the exclusion under section 61 but do not specify that it is subsection 61(4).
The part the quote did not support: section 61(4)
What it rested on
61 Guarantees as to fitness for a particular purpose etc.
This section does not apply to a supply of services of a professional nature by a qualified architect or engineer.
Australian Consumer Law section 62 provides a guarantee that services will be supplied within a reasonable time where no time is fixed by the contract or agreed method.
Why it was not published: The quotes establish the section 62 reasonable-time guarantee but do not state the condition that no time is fixed or agreed method is provided.
The part the quote did not support: where no time is fixed by the contract or agreed method
What it rested on
62 Guarantee as to reasonable time for supply
there is a guarantee that the services will be supplied within a reasonable time.
Australian Consumer Law section 267(2) gives the consumer the right to require a supplier to remedy a services failure that can be remedied and is not major.
Why it was not published: The quotes establish the substantive right under section 267 but do not identify it as subsection (2).
The part the quote did not support: section 267(2)
What it rested on
267 Action against suppliers of services
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; or
Australian Consumer Law section 267(3) lets a consumer recover compensation for the reduction in value where the failure cannot be remedied or is a major failure.
Why it was not published: The quotes show section 267 provides this compensation remedy but do not identify it as subsection (3).
The part the quote did not support: section 267(3)
What it rested on
267 Action against suppliers of services
If the failure to comply with the guarantee cannot be remedied or is a major failure, the consumer may:
(a) terminate the contract for the supply of the services; or
(b) by action against the supplier, recover compensation for any reduction in the value of the services below the price paid or payable by the consumer for the services.
Australian Consumer Law section 269(3) entitles a consumer who terminates a services contract to a refund of money paid, to the extent the services have not already been consumed at the time termination takes effect.
Why it was not published: The quotes establish a refund entitlement under section 269 but do not identify subsection (3).
The part the quote did not support: section 269(3)
What it rested on
269 Termination of contracts for the supply of services
The consumer is entitled to recover, by action against the supplier of the services, a refund of:
to the extent that the consumer has not already consumed the services at the time the termination takes effect.
Australian Consumer Law section 63(1)(a) excludes the services guarantees from contracts for the transportation or storage of goods for the purposes of a business, trade, profession or occupation carried on by the person for whom the goods are transported or stored.
Why it was not published: The quotes show section 63(a) concerns transport/storage contracts to which the Subdivision does not apply, but they do not state that the Subdivision contains the services guarantees.
The part the quote did not support: services guarantees
What it rested on
63 Services to which this Subdivision does not apply
(a) a contract for or in relation to the transportation or storage of goods for the purposes of a business, trade, profession or occupation carried on or engaged in by the person for whom the goods are transported or stored; or
Consumer Affairs Victoria states that for a minor services problem the consumer can require the business to fix the problem within a reasonable time.
Why it was not published: The quote states the consumer can require the business to fix the problem within a reasonable time, but does not specify that this applies to a minor services problem.
The part the quote did not support: for a minor services problem
What it rested on
The consumer can require the business to fix the problem within a reasonable time.
Consumer Affairs Victoria states that where a service is a major problem, the consumer can choose to cancel the contract and pay a reasonable amount for the work done.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the consumer can choose to cancel and pay a reasonable amount, but none of them mention that this applies where the service is a major problem.
The part the quote did not support: where a service is a major problem
What it rested on
The consumer can choose to:
cancel the contract and pay a reasonable amount for the work done, or seek a partial refund of money already paid, or
Consumer Affairs Victoria states that where a service is a major problem, the consumer can seek a partial refund of money already paid.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the consumer can seek a partial refund, but do not state this applies where the service is a major problem.
The part the quote did not support: where a service is a major problem
What it rested on
The consumer can choose to:
cancel the contract and pay a reasonable amount for the work done, or seek a partial refund of money already paid, or
Consumer Affairs Victoria states that the exception denying a remedy for causes outside the supplier's control does not apply when suppliers have not provided the service with due care and skill.
Why it was not published: The quote says only 'This exception does not apply...' and does not describe the exception as one denying a remedy for causes outside the supplier's control.
The part the quote did not support: denying a remedy for causes outside the supplier's control
What it rested on
This exception does not apply when suppliers have not provided the service with due care and skill.
Australian Consumer Law section 64(1) makes void any contract term that purports to exclude, restrict or modify the application of the consumer guarantees.
Why it was not published: The quotes show the s64 heading and listed items but do not state that a contract term is void.
The part the quote did not support: makes void any contract term that purports to exclude, restrict or modify
What it rested on
64 Guarantees not to be excluded etc. by contract
(a) the application of all or any of the provisions of this Division; 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.
Australian Consumer Law section 64(1) makes void any contract term that purports to exclude, restrict or modify a person's liability for failing to comply with the consumer guarantees.
Why it was not published: The quotes provide only the section heading and list items (a) and (c), not the operative provision stating a contract term is void to the extent it purports to exclude, restrict or modify liability.
The part the quote did not support: makes void any contract term that purports to exclude, restrict or modify a person's liability
What it rested on
64 Guarantees not to be excluded etc. by contract
(a) the application of all or any of the provisions of this Division; 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.
Australian Consumer Law section 64A(2) allows a contract for the supply of services other than services ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use to limit the supplier's liability to supplying the services again or paying the cost of having them supplied again.
Why it was not published: The quotes mention 64A and the limitation remedies but never state the qualifying class of services or subsection (2).
The part the quote did not support: other than services ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use
What it rested on
64A Limitation of liability for failures to comply with guarantees
(a) the supplying of the services again; or
(b) the payment of the cost of having the services supplied again.
small claims6
The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal states that myVCAT is free to use for all applicants and respondents who are parties to a goods and services application lodged on or after 6 December 2023.
Why it was not published: The quote says 'It's free to use' but does not identify that 'It' refers to myVCAT.
The part the quote did not support: myVCAT
What it rested on
It's free to use for all applicants and respondents who are parties to a goods and services application lodged on or after 6 December 2023.
The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal splits its goods and services application fee for claims under the Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012 into a band at or below $15,000 and a band above it.
Why it was not published: The quotes show two application categories based on $15,000 but do not mention that Act or application fee.
The part the quote did not support: under the Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012
What it rested on
Application not for a sum, or for a sum that is not more than $15,000
Application for a sum that is not specified or is more than $15,000
The ACCC reports that the Consumer Policy Research Centre found there can be more than 60 steps involved for a consumer to get a successful outcome in small claims, even in a straightforward VCAT matter.
Why it was not published: The quote says a straightforward VCAT matter but does not state 'small claims,' so that specific detail is not established.
The part the quote did not support: in small claims
What it rested on
In 2023, the Consumer Policy Research Centre (CPRC) conducted research with support from the Consumer Action Law Centre (CALC) into the consumer experience of faulty cars in Victoria. The report found that there can be more than 60 steps involved for a consumer to get a successful outcome even in a straightforward VCAT matter
Small claims are unlikely to be successfully pursued by consumers through tribunals without legal assistance and the capacity to fund an expert mechanical report.
Why it was not published: The quote says consumers generally are unlikely to succeed in pursuing a remedy through tribunals, but does not state or entail that the claims are 'small.'
The part the quote did not support: Small claims
What it rested on
Many reports suggest that consumers are unlikely to be successful in pursuing a remedy through tribunals without legal assistance and the capacity to fund an expert mechanical report.
The ACCC reports that, in small claims, tribunals may expect consumers to compromise on their Australian Consumer Law rights during the mandatory conciliation stage of tribunal processes.
Why it was not published: The quote does not mention small claims; it refers to tribunal processes generally.
The part the quote did not support: in small claims
What it rested on
Tribunals may interpret law differently to established court precedent, and may expect consumers to compromise on their ACL rights during the mandatory conciliation stage of tribunal processes.
In small claims, even where a consumer receives a favourable tribunal outcome, the compensation awarded may not cover the full costs of repairs, legal costs, and any independent mechanical expert reports.
Why it was not published: The quote parallels the rest of the claim but does not state it applies in small claims or to a tribunal outcome.
The part the quote did not support: In small claims ... favourable tribunal outcome
What it rested on
Even if a consumer receives a favourable outcome, the compensation awarded may not cover the full costs of repairs, legal costs and any independent mechanical expert reports.
spare parts13
Australian Consumer Law section 58(1) provides a guarantee that the manufacturer of goods will take reasonable action to ensure that repair facilities and parts for the goods are reasonably available for a reasonable period after supply.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the guarantee under section 58 but do not identify it as Australian Consumer Law section 58(1).
The part the quote did not support: Australian Consumer Law section 58(1)
What it rested on
58 Guarantee as to repairs and spare parts
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 section 58(2) removes the repairs and spare parts guarantee where the manufacturer took reasonable action to ensure the consumer was given written notice, at or before agreeing to the supply, that parts or repair facilities would not be available or would not be available after a specified period.
Why it was not published: The quotes support a section 58 exception for parts, but do not cite subsection (2) or mention repair facilities.
The part the quote did not support: section 58(2) and repair facilities
What it rested on
58 Guarantee as to repairs and spare parts
This section does not apply if 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, that:
(b) parts for the goods would not be available or would not be available after a specified period.
The ACCC states, regarding spare parts, that the manufacturer or importer must provide spare parts for a reasonable time after purchase even if the consumer did not buy the goods directly from the manufacturer or importer.
Why it was not published: The quotes do not include the phrase 'reasonable time after purchase'; the first quote is cut off at 'for a' and the second only supports the direct-purchase point.
The part the quote did not support: for a reasonable time after purchase
What it rested on
When a consumer buys a product, the manufacturer or importer must provide spare parts and repair facilities for a
This applies even if the consumer did not buy the goods directly from the manufacturer or importer.
The ACCC states, regarding spare parts, that the manufacturer or importer must provide repair facilities for a reasonable time after purchase even if the consumer did not buy the goods directly from the manufacturer or importer.
Why it was not published: The first quote is truncated before stating any time period, so it does not establish the 'reasonable time after purchase' requirement.
The part the quote did not support: for a reasonable time after purchase
What it rested on
When a consumer buys a product, the manufacturer or importer must provide spare parts and repair facilities for a
This applies even if the consumer did not buy the goods directly from the manufacturer or importer.
Consumer Affairs Victoria states that where a manufacturer does not have an office in Australia the importer takes on the repairs and spare parts responsibilities.
Why it was not published: The quote states the importer takes on 'these responsibilities' but does not specify that they are repairs and spare parts responsibilities.
The part the quote did not support: repairs and spare parts responsibilities
What it rested on
If the manufacturer does not have an office in Australia, the importer takes on these responsibilities.
Consumer Affairs Victoria states that spare parts or repairs being unavailable is a major problem where a reasonable consumer would not have bought the product had they known beforehand that spare parts or repairs would not be available.
Why it was not published: The quote supports the consumer-would-not-have-bought condition but does not state or clearly entail that this situation constitutes a 'major problem.'
The part the quote did not support: is a major problem
What it rested on
a reasonable consumer would not have bought it if they had known beforehand that spare parts or repairs would not be available.
Consumer Affairs Victoria states that a consumer can recover costs from the manufacturer for a failure to comply with the repairs and spare parts guarantee.
Why it was not published: The quote supports recovering costs for 'this guarantee' but does not identify it as the repairs and spare parts guarantee.
The part the quote did not support: the repairs and spare parts guarantee
What it rested on
A consumer can recover costs from the manufacturer, including an amount for reduction in the product's value and, in some cases, compensation for damages or loss for a failure to comply with this guarantee.
The ACCC states that an express warranty may be about the availability of servicing, parts or identical replacements.
Why it was not published: The cited quote provides only the phrase 'the availability of servicing, parts or identical replacements' and does not state that ACCC says an express warranty may be about it.
The part the quote did not support: express warranty may be about
Sprintlaw asserts that a business that outsources spare parts repairs to the manufacturer remains responsible under the Australian Consumer Law.
Why it was not published: The quote supports responsibility under the ACL when using a repair partner, but does not specify spare parts repairs or that the repair partner is the manufacturer.
The part the quote did not support: outsources spare parts repairs to the manufacturer
What it rested on
You're still responsible under the ACL. Make sure your repair partner's timeframes and communications align with your policy. Where delays become unreasonable, be ready to offer a replacement or refund.
Sprintlaw asserts that a business that outsources spare parts repairs to the manufacturer should be ready to offer a replacement or refund where delays become unreasonable.
Why it was not published: The quote only mentions a 'repair partner,' not that the outsourced repairs are spare parts repairs sent to the manufacturer.
The part the quote did not support: outsources spare parts repairs to the manufacturer
What it rested on
You're still responsible under the ACL. Make sure your repair partner's timeframes and communications align with your policy. Where delays become unreasonable, be ready to offer a replacement or refund.
The Productivity Commission reported that the ACCC submitted that the low cost of spare parts repair relative to providing a refund or replacement gave manufacturers a strong incentive to maintain some form of repair facility available to Australian consumers.
Why it was not published: The cited quotes end at 'maintain some form' and do not state that the repair facility was available to Australian consumers.
The part the quote did not support: available to Australian consumers
What it rested on
The ACCC submitted that the low cost of repair relative to providing a
refund or replacement provided a strong incentive for manufacturers to maintain some form
The ACCC submitted that the low cost of spare parts repair relative to providing a refund or replacement gave manufacturers a strong incentive to maintain some form of repair facility available to Australian consumers.
Why it was not published: The quotes support ACCC's submission about low-cost repair versus refund/replacement, but do not state 'spare parts' or that the maintained repair facility is available to Australian consumers.
The part the quote did not support: spare parts repair facility available to Australian consumers
What it rested on
The ACCC submitted that the low cost of repair relative to providing a
refund or replacement provided a strong incentive for manufacturers to maintain some form
The Productivity Commission reported that the ACCC submitted that in its experience few manufacturers give the written notice that removes the spare parts guarantee.
Why it was not published: The quotes say 'few manufacturers provide such notice' but do not specify that the notice is the written notice that removes the spare parts guarantee.
The part the quote did not support: the written notice that removes the spare parts guarantee
What it rested on
the ACCC submitted that in its
experience 'few manufacturers provide such notice'
store credit14
For store credit, Consumer Affairs Victoria states that the maximum penalties for a body corporate are the greater of $10 million or three times the benefit obtained.
Why it was not published: The CAV quote states the maximum penalties for a body corporate but does not mention or tie those penalties to store credit.
The part the quote did not support: For store credit
What it rested on
The maximum civil penalty for providing false or misleading information about the existence, exclusion or effect of the consumer guarantees or remedies is $1.1 million for a body corporate and $220,000 for an individual.
The maximum civil pecuniary and criminal penalties for a body corporate are the greater of: $10 million, or three times the value of the benefit obtained from the offence, or act or omission, by the body corporate and any related bodies corporate if the benefit obtained can be determined by the court
The ACCC states that a supplier must not offer a credit note instead of a refund for store credit.
Why it was not published: The quote says a supplier must not offer a credit note instead of a refund, but it does not state the added 'for store credit' qualifier.
The part the quote did not support: for store credit
What it rested on
A supplier must not: • offer a credit note, exchange card or replacement goods instead of a refund
The ACCC states that a supplier must not offer an exchange card instead of a refund for store credit.
Why it was not published: The quote says a supplier must not offer an exchange card instead of a refund, but it does not mention store credit.
The part the quote did not support: for store credit
What it rested on
A supplier must not: • offer a credit note, exchange card or replacement goods instead of a refund
The ACCC states that a supplier must not offer replacement goods instead of a refund for store credit.
Why it was not published: The cited quote supports the general prohibition on offering replacement goods instead of a refund, but it does not state the 'for store credit' qualifier.
The part the quote did not support: for store credit
What it rested on
A supplier must not: • offer a credit note, exchange card or replacement goods instead of a refund
The ACCC's documented position on store credit states that when a consumer chooses a refund, the supplier must repay any money paid by the consumer for the returned goods.
Why it was not published: The quote states the supplier must repay money for returned goods, but does not state this applies specifically when a consumer chooses a refund or in the context of store credit.
The part the quote did not support: when a consumer chooses a refund
What it rested on
The supplier must repay any money paid by the consumer for the returned goods, and return any other form of payment made by the consumer
The ACCC's documented position on store credit states that when a consumer chooses a refund, the supplier must return any other form of payment made by the consumer.
Why it was not published: The quote states the supplier must return any other form of payment for returned goods, but does not mention store credit or the refund-choice context.
The part the quote did not support: on store credit
What it rested on
The supplier must repay any money paid by the consumer for the returned goods, and return any other form of payment made by the consumer
The ACCC's documented position on store credit is that a refund should be the full amount the consumer paid.
Why it was not published: The cited quote addresses refunds, not the ACCC's position on store credit.
The part the quote did not support: store credit
What it rested on
A refund should be the full amount the consumer paid for the product. The business must not deduct an amount from a refund to take into account the use a consumer has had of the product.
The ACCC gives an example stating that a hotel cannot provide a refund by way of loyalty points unless the consumer chooses to accept store credit instead.
Why it was not published: The quote says the consumer may accept hotel loyalty points instead, not 'store credit.'
The part the quote did not support: store credit
What it rested on
The hotel can't provide a refund to the consumer by way of giving them hotel loyalty points, unless the consumer chooses to accept this instead.
For store credit, the ACCC gives an example.
Why it was not published: The quote gives a loyalty-points refund example, not a store-credit example.
The part the quote did not support: store credit
What it rested on
However, if the consumer had purchased the accommodation booking using hotel loyalty points, the hotel can provide loyalty points back to the consumer as their refund. The consumer can't demand a cash refund instead.
For store credit, the ACCC's example states that if the consumer paid with hotel loyalty points, then the hotel can refund in loyalty points.
Why it was not published: The quote describes a refund in loyalty points but does not mention store credit.
The part the quote did not support: For store credit
What it rested on
However, if the consumer had purchased the accommodation booking using hotel loyalty points, the hotel can provide loyalty points back to the consumer as their refund. The consumer can't demand a cash refund instead.
For store credit, the ACCC's example states that if the consumer paid with hotel loyalty points, then the consumer cannot demand a cash refund instead.
Why it was not published: The quote says the hotel can provide loyalty points back as a refund, but it does not mention store credit.
The part the quote did not support: For store credit
What it rested on
However, if the consumer had purchased the accommodation booking using hotel loyalty points, the hotel can provide loyalty points back to the consumer as their refund. The consumer can't demand a cash refund instead.
Consumer Affairs Victoria states that a store or seller may still choose to give a refund, exchange or credit note in situations where the consumer guarantees do not require one.
Why it was not published: The quote says 'some of these situations' but does not establish the antecedent as situations where consumer guarantees do not require one.
The part the quote did not support: where the consumer guarantees do not require one
What it rested on
In some of these situations, the store or seller may still choose to give a refund, exchange or credit note.
The ACCC states that, with respect to store credit, businesses cannot take away a consumer's right to a refund or replacement for faulty products or services.
Why it was not published: The quotes establish the general rule but none mentions store credit.
The part the quote did not support: with respect to store credit
What it rested on
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.
The ACCC states that, with respect to store credit, it is illegal to rely on store policies or terms and conditions that deny those rights.
Why it was not published: The cited quotes do not mention store credit, only refusing refunds or replacements via store policies or terms.
The part the quote did not support: with respect to store credit
What it rested on
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.
unsolicited consumer agreements25
Australian Consumer Law section 69(1AA) provides that the place of negotiation may be a public place.
Why it was not published: The cited quotes only name section 69 and a legislative note, but do not state section 69(1AA) or that the place of negotiation may be a public place.
The part the quote did not support: provides that the place of negotiation may be a public place
What it rested on
69 Meaning of unsolicited consumer agreement
Note: This subsection was inserted as a response to the decision of the Federal Court of Australia in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v A.C.N. 099 814 749 Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 403.
Australian Consumer Law section 69(1AA) was inserted as a response to the Federal Court's decision in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v A.C.N. 099 814 749 Pty Ltd.
Why it was not published: The note says a subsection was inserted in response to the decision but does not identify it as 69(1AA), and the heading only shows section 69.
The part the quote did not support: section 69(1AA)
What it rested on
69 Meaning of unsolicited consumer agreement
Note: This subsection was inserted as a response to the decision of the Federal Court of Australia in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v A.C.N. 099 814 749 Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 403.
The Australian Consumer Law provides that the amendments to the prohibition on supplies made by Part 6 of Schedule 14 to the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Competition Policy Review) Act 2017 apply only to unsolicited consumer agreements made on or after the commencement of that Part.
Why it was not published: The quote states the amendments apply in relation to such agreements, but does not state they apply only to them or mention a prohibition on supplies.
The part the quote did not support: apply only to
What it rested on
The amendments made by Part 6 of Schedule 14 to the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Competition Policy Review) Act 2017 apply in relation to unsolicited consumer agreements made on or after the commencement of that Part.
For unsolicited consumer agreements, Australian Consumer Law section 73 prohibits a dealer from calling on a person after 6 pm on any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday.
Why it was not published: The legislative quote says after 6 pm only for 'any other day' with a different 5 pm Saturday limit, and the ACCC quote lists weekdays as 9 am to 8 pm, so the asserted non-holiday 6 pm cutoff is not established.
The part the quote did not support: after 6 pm on any day other than a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday
What it rested on
weekdays between 9 am and 8 pm
(c) after 6 pm on any other day (or after 5 pm if the other day is a Saturday).
73 Permitted hours for negotiating an unsolicited consumer agreement
Australian Consumer Law section 69(1)(d)(ii) sets the threshold for an unsolicited consumer agreement at a total price of more than $100 or such other amount prescribed by the regulations.
Why it was not published: The quotes show section 69's heading and the $100 threshold language but do not identify the specific subsection 69(1)(d)(ii).
The part the quote did not support: Australian Consumer Law section 69(1)(d)(ii)
What it rested on
69 Meaning of unsolicited consumer agreement
if it is ascertainable at that time-is more than $100 or such other amount prescribed by the regulations.
Australian Consumer Law section 69(1)(b) requires that the negotiations occur in each other's presence at a place other than the supplier's business or trade premises, or by telephone.
Why it was not published: The quotes include the presence-at-place alternative but do not state the telephone alternative.
The part the quote did not support: or by telephone
What it rested on
69 Meaning of unsolicited consumer agreement
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
Australian Consumer Law section 69(1A) provides that giving a name or contact details other than for the predominant purpose of entering into negotiations does not count as inviting the dealer.
Why it was not published: The quote lists the name/contact-details circumstance but does not state that giving those details outside the predominant purpose does not count as inviting the dealer.
The part the quote did not support: does not count as inviting the dealer
What it rested on
69 Meaning of unsolicited consumer agreement
(a) given his or her name or contact details other than for the predominant purpose of entering into negotiations relating to the supply of the goods or services referred to in subsection (1)(c); or
Australian Consumer Law section 70(1) presumes an agreement to be an unsolicited consumer agreement in a non-criminal proceeding unless another party proves it is not.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the agreement is presumed to be an unsolicited consumer agreement unless another party to the proceeding proves otherwise, but they do not state or entail that this applies only in a non-criminal proceeding.
The part the quote did not support: in a non-criminal proceeding
What it rested on
70 Presumption that agreements are unsolicited consumer agreements
an agreement is presumed to be an unsolicited consumer agreement if:
(b) no other party to the proceeding proves that the agreement is not an unsolicited consumer agreement.
Australian Consumer Law section 73(1) prohibits a dealer from calling on a person to negotiate an unsolicited consumer agreement on a Sunday or public holiday.
Why it was not published: The quotes show only the section heading and time paragraphs, not a prohibition on dealers calling on persons, nor subsection (1).
The part the quote did not support: section 73(1) prohibits a dealer from calling on a person
What it rested on
73 Permitted hours for negotiating an unsolicited consumer agreement
(a) at any time on a Sunday or a public holiday; or
(b) before 9 am on any other day; or
(c) after 6 pm on any other day (or after 5 pm if the other day is a Saturday).
Australian Consumer Law section 73(1) prohibits a dealer from calling on a person to negotiate an unsolicited consumer agreement before 9 am.
Why it was not published: The quotes show section 73 and a time list, but do not include the operative statement that a dealer is prohibited from calling on a person before 9 am.
The part the quote did not support: prohibits a dealer from calling on a person
What it rested on
73 Permitted hours for negotiating an unsolicited consumer agreement
(a) at any time on a Sunday or a public holiday; or
(b) before 9 am on any other day; or
(c) after 6 pm on any other day (or after 5 pm if the other day is a Saturday).
Australian Consumer Law section 73(1) prohibits a dealer from calling on a person to negotiate an unsolicited consumer agreement after 6 pm on any other day.
Why it was not published: The quotes show section 73's heading and the after-6-pm time but do not state the operative prohibition on a dealer calling on a person.
The part the quote did not support: prohibits a dealer from calling on a person
What it rested on
73 Permitted hours for negotiating an unsolicited consumer agreement
(a) at any time on a Sunday or a public holiday; or
(b) before 9 am on any other day; or
(c) after 6 pm on any other day (or after 5 pm if the other day is a Saturday).
Australian Consumer Law section 73(1) prohibits a dealer from calling on a person to negotiate an unsolicited consumer agreement after 5 pm on a Saturday.
Why it was not published: The cited excerpts list hours labeled as permitted but do not state a prohibition or the dealer/calling language.
The part the quote did not support: prohibits a dealer from calling on a person
What it rested on
73 Permitted hours for negotiating an unsolicited consumer agreement
(a) at any time on a Sunday or a public holiday; or
(b) before 9 am on any other day; or
(c) after 6 pm on any other day (or after 5 pm if the other day is a Saturday).
Australian Consumer Law section 75(2) prohibits a dealer who has been asked to leave from contacting the prospective consumer to negotiate an unsolicited consumer agreement for at least 30 days after the request.
Why it was not published: The quotes show a 30-day no-contact obligation after a request to cease negotiating, but do not state the request was to leave.
The part the quote did not support: asked to leave
What it rested on
75 Ceasing to negotiate on request
the dealer must not contact the prospective consumer for the purpose of negotiating an unsolicited consumer agreement (or for an incidental or related purpose) for at least 30 days after the prospective consumer makes the request.
Australian Consumer Law section 82(3)(a) sets the termination period for an agreement not negotiated by telephone as ending at the end of the tenth business day after the day the agreement was made.
Why it was not published: The quotes establish the ten-business-day termination period for non-telephone agreements under section 82 but do not identify subsection 82(3)(a).
The part the quote did not support: section 82(3)(a)
What it rested on
82 Terminating an unsolicited consumer agreement during the termination period
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;
Australian Consumer Law section 82(3)(c) extends the termination period to three months for an unsolicited consumer agreement where sections 73, 74 or 75 were contravened in relation to the agreement.
Why it was not published: The quotes mention section 82 and the listed contravening sections but do not state that the termination period is extended to three months or cite subsection 82(3)(c).
The part the quote did not support: extends the termination period to three months
What it rested on
82 Terminating an unsolicited consumer agreement during the termination period
if one or more of sections 73 (permitted hours for negotiating an unsolicited consumer agreement), 74 (disclosing purpose and identity) and 75 (ceasing to negotiate on request) were contravened in relation to the agreement:
Australian Consumer Law section 82(2) allows the right of termination to be exercised even though the agreement has been fully executed.
Why it was not published: The quotes show section 82 and the full-execution exception, but they do not specify subsection 82(2).
The part the quote did not support: section 82(2)
What it rested on
82 Terminating an unsolicited consumer agreement during the termination period
(a) despite affirmation of the agreement by the consumer; and
(b) even though the agreement has been fully executed.
Australian Consumer Law section 82(6) provides that there are no requirements relating to the form or content of a notice terminating an unsolicited consumer agreement.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the substantive no-form/content rule but do not identify it as being in section 82(6); the only subsection referenced is (1).
The part the quote did not support: section 82(6)
What it rested on
82 Terminating an unsolicited consumer agreement during the termination period
There are no requirements relating to the form or content of a notice under subsection (1).
Australian Consumer Law section 85(2) provides that goods become the property of the consumer freed of all liens and charges if the consumer notifies the supplier where to collect them and the supplier does not collect within 30 days after termination.
Why it was not published: The cited quotes support the property transfer and 30-day collection condition but do not state the notification requirement.
The part the quote did not support: if the consumer notifies the supplier where to collect them
What it rested on
85 Obligations and rights of consumers on termination
The goods become the property of the consumer, freed and discharged from all liens and charges of any description, if:
(b) the supplier does not collect the goods within 30 days after the termination of the contract.
The ACCC states that the unsolicited consumer agreement rules do not apply to agreements where the total value is less than $100, no matter how the consumer was approached.
Why it was not published: The quoted fragment says 'apply to agreements...' and does not state the rules do not apply.
The part the quote did not support: do not apply to agreements where the total value is less than $100
What it rested on
apply to agreements where the total value is less than $100, no matter how the consumer was approached.
Consumer Affairs Victoria states that under unsolicited consumer agreements, consumers who initiate or ask somebody to visit them at home do not get the same rights.
Why it was not published: The quotes support that consumers who initiate or ask for a home visit do not get the same rights, but they do not mention or establish the specific legal context 'under unsolicited consumer agreements.'
The part the quote did not support: under unsolicited consumer agreements
What it rested on
If consumers initiate or ask somebody to visit them at home (for example, calling an electricity company to discuss changing providers, and asking for an agent to visit) this is
In such cases, consumers do not get the same rights, such as a cooling-off period.
Sprintlaw asserts that breaches of the cooling-off restrictions can make unsolicited consumer agreements unenforceable.
Why it was not published: The quote says breaches can make the contract unenforceable but does not specify cooling-off restrictions.
The part the quote did not support: cooling-off restrictions
What it rested on
Breaches can make the contract unenforceable and expose your business to penalties or refund obligations.
Sprintlaw asserts that breaches of the cooling-off restrictions can expose the business to penalties or refund obligations for unsolicited consumer agreements.
Why it was not published: The quote states breaches can expose the business to penalties or refund obligations but does not mention cooling-off restrictions.
The part the quote did not support: cooling-off restrictions
What it rested on
Breaches can make the contract unenforceable and expose your business to penalties or refund obligations.
The ACCC states that its review of unsolicited consumer agreements followed the first designated complaint submitted to the ACCC.
Why it was not published: The quote only establishes that the Consumer Action Law Centre submitted the first designated complaint; it does not state that the ACCC's review followed that complaint.
The part the quote did not support: its review of unsolicited consumer agreements followed the first designated complaint submitted to the ACCC
What it rested on
In March 2025, the Consumer Action Law Centre submitted the first 'designated complaint' to the ACCC under a new complaints framework .
The ACCC states that the first designated complaint submitted to the ACCC, which the ACCC's review of unsolicited consumer agreements followed, was made by the Consumer Action Law Centre in March 2025.
Why it was not published: The quote establishes the first designated complaint by Consumer Action Law Centre in March 2025, but does not state that the ACCC's review of unsolicited consumer agreements followed it.
The part the quote did not support: which the ACCC's review of unsolicited consumer agreements followed
What it rested on
In March 2025, the Consumer Action Law Centre submitted the first 'designated complaint' to the ACCC under a new complaints framework .
The ACCC reports that the Federal Court found that Superfone's breach concerning unsolicited consumer agreements included accepting payment within the termination period.
Why it was not published: The quotes state the Federal Court found Superfone breached ACL provisions including accepting payment within the termination period, but they do not state the breach concerned unsolicited consumer agreements.
The part the quote did not support: concerning unsolicited consumer agreements
What it rested on
The Federal Court found Superfone breached various provisions of the ACL including failing to
provide consumers with documentation, accepting payment within the termination period, and
who pays for return postage8
The ACCC's documented position on who pays for return postage is that a business which finds the product does not have a problem can make the consumer pay the collection and inspection costs.
Why it was not published: The quote states the business can make the consumer pay collection and inspection costs but does not state that this applies when the product has no problem.
The part the quote did not support: which finds the product does not have a problem
What it rested on
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
The ACCC's documented position on who pays for return postage is that a business which finds the product does not have a problem must first give the consumer a reasonable estimate of the collection and inspection costs.
Why it was not published: The quote only addresses collection and inspection costs, not return postage, so it does not establish the ACCC's position on who pays return postage.
The part the quote did not support: return postage
What it rested on
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
Section 263(2) of the Australian Consumer Law requires the consumer to return rejected goods to the supplier, subject to stated exceptions.
Why it was not published: The quotes support a return obligation under s 263, but do not identify subsection (2).
The part the quote did not support: Section 263(2)
What it rested on
263 Consequences of rejecting goods
The consumer must return the goods to the supplier unless:
Section 263(2)(b) of the Australian Consumer Law excuses the consumer from returning rejected goods that cannot be returned, removed or transported without significant cost to the consumer because of the nature of the failure or the size, height or method of attachment of the goods.
Why it was not published: The quotes support the size/height/method-of-attachment basis but do not mention the alternative 'nature of the failure' or the cited section.
The part the quote did not support: nature of the failure
What it rested on
the goods cannot be returned, removed or transported without significant cost to the consumer because of:
the size or height, or method of attachment, of the goods.
Section 263(3) of the Australian Consumer Law requires the supplier to collect the goods at the supplier's expense, within a reasonable time, where the consumer is excused from returning them.
Why it was not published: The quote states the supplier's collection duty but does not identify it as Section 263(3) of the Australian Consumer Law.
The part the quote did not support: Section 263(3) of the Australian Consumer Law
What it rested on
If subsection (2)(b) applies, the supplier must, within a reasonable time, collect the goods at the supplier’s expense.
The ACCC's guide for businesses and legal practitioners states who pays for return postage.
Why it was not published: The quote says the consumer must return the goods unless return cost is significant, but it does not explicitly state who pays for return postage.
The part the quote did not support: who pays for return postage
What it rested on
The consumer must return the goods to the supplier unless the cost of returning, removing or transporting is significant
Amazon AU states that a $50 return shipping fee will be charged for change of mind returns of Large items.
Why it was not published: The quote states a $50 fee for change of mind returns but does not specify that this applies to Large items.
The part the quote did not support: of Large items
Among the representations for which Hewlett-Packard was penalised was that products purchased online could only be returned at the business's discretion.
Why it was not published: The quotes show HP was penalised for false/misleading representations and separately quote the return statement, but no cited quote ties that statement to HP or the penalty.
The part the quote did not support: Among the representations for which Hewlett-Packard was penalised was that products purchased online could only be returned at the business's discretion.
What it rested on
In July 2013, the Federal Court ordered that Hewlett-Packard, a manufacturer and retailer of computer hardware, pay a $3 million civil pecuniary penalty for making false or misleading representations to consumers and retailers regarding consumer guarantee rights.
products purchased online could only be returned at the business’ discretion.