Minor failure
16 established claims - 13 refused by the grounding gate
Documented position8
What the body that runs or defines the thing says in its own documentation.
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.
1 quote from 1 source
When a product or service has a minor problem, the business must fix the problem or repair the product for free.
- Repair, replace, refund, cancel | ACCC accc.gov.au
Regarding repair, the ACCC states that a business…
- does not have to offer a replacement or refund for a minor problem.
- can choose to offer a replacement or refund for a minor problem.
1 quote from 1 source
have to offer a replacement or refund for a minor problem, although it can choose to do this.
- Repair, replace, refund, cancel | ACCC accc.gov.au
The ACCC states that businesses must fix a minor problem with a product or service by at least giving a free repair.
1 quote from 1 source
Businesses must fix a minor problem with a product or service by at least giving a free repair.
- Repair, replace, refund, cancel | ACCC accc.gov.au
The ACCC states that when a business cannot or will not fix a minor problem, the consumer is entitled to get a refund or replacement.
2 quotes from 1 source
When the business can’t or won’t fix a minor problem
get a refund or replacement instead
- Repair, replace, refund, cancel | ACCC accc.gov.au
Section 261 of the Australian Consumer Law allows the supplier to comply with a requirement to remedy a failure by repairing the goods.
3 quotes from 1 source
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
The ACCC states in its guide for businesses and legal practitioners that when the problem with the goods is minor the supplier can choose the remedy, either a repair, replacement or refund.
1 quote from 1 source
When the problem with the goods is minor, the supplier can choose the remedy—either a repair, replacement or refund.
The ACCC states in its guide for businesses and legal practitioners that where a failure of goods is not major and can be repaired within a reasonable time, the consumer cannot reject the goods and demand a refund.
1 quote from 1 source
If a failure of goods is not major and can be repaired within a reasonable time, the consumer cannot reject the goods and demand a refund.
Practical effect1
What is observed to happen in practice, as distinct from what is documented.
Among the representations for which Hewlett-Packard was penalised was that consumers were required to have their product repaired multiple times before they were entitled to a replacement.
2 quotes from 1 source
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.
consumers were required to have their product repaired multiple times before they were entitled to a replacement
Repeated, with no primary source in reach7
Widely repeated in the field. Within the documents this sweep read, it traces only to other repetitions - which is a fact about our reading as well as about the idea, until each one has been searched for on its own.
Myer states that if the failure is minor, Myer…
- will repair the item within a reasonable time.
- may at its discretion replace the item or refund the customer.
1 quote from 1 source
If the failure is minor, we will repair the item (or, at our discretion, we may replace the item or refund you) within a reasonable time.
CHOICE states that minor problems are anything that can be fixed within a reasonable period of time.
1 quote from 1 source
Minor problems are anything that can be fixed within a reasonable period of time.
CHOICE states that if a product has two or more minor failures it can be considered a major failure.
1 quote from 1 source
If your faulty product has two or more minor failures of the consumer guarantees, it can be considered a major failure.
Kmart states that if the failure is minor it reserves its right to offer to repair only.
1 quote from 1 source
If the failure is minor, we reserve our right to offer to repair only.
CHOICE states that where a product has a minor issue the business…
- is only obligated to repair it free of charge.
- does not have to offer a replacement or refund.
1 quote from 1 source
If your product has a minor issue, the business is only obligated to repair it free of charge – it doesn’t have to offer you a replacement or refund.
- Refunds and returns in Australia – your rights choice.com.au
Refused13
Claims the research produced that the grounding gate would not accept, with its reason. They are here because a site that only shows what passed gives you no way to judge whether the gate does anything.
Show what was refused
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.
Refused: The quotes state the provision's wording but do not identify it as Section 259(2) of the Australian Consumer Law.
Unsupported: 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.
Refused: The quotes state Section 261's replacement remedy but do not establish that it applies to a minor failure.
Unsupported: 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.
Refused: The cited quotes only mention repairing or replacing goods, not refunding money paid.
Unsupported: 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.
Refused: The quotes state the remedial right but do not identify it as Section 259(2)(b) of the Australian Consumer Law.
Unsupported: 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.
Refused: The quotes state the cost-recovery rule but do not identify it as Section 259(2)(b) of the Australian Consumer Law.
Unsupported: 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.
Refused: 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.
Unsupported: 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.
Refused: The cited quotes state the repair-elsewhere remedy when a supplier cannot repair, but do not state it applies for a minor failure.
Unsupported: 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.
Refused: 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.
Unsupported: 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.
CHOICE found in a shadow shop of major electrical retailers that seven in 10 stores misrepresented a customer's right to a remedy.
Refused: 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.
Unsupported: 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
The Federal Court ordered Hewlett-Packard to pay a $3 million civil pecuniary penalty for the minor failure in July 2013.
Refused: The quote states the penalty was for making false or misleading representations about consumer guarantee rights, not for a 'minor failure'.
Unsupported: 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.
Refused: The quote establishes HP made false or misleading representations but does not characterize that conduct as a minor failure.
Unsupported: 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.
Refused: The quotes show HP was penalised for misleading consumer guarantee representations but do not mention a 'minor failure' representation.
Unsupported: 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.
Refused: The cited quote states the remedies limitation but does not characterize it as a minor failure.
Unsupported: 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