Nelson v Motor 1 Limited Reference No. MVD 163/14 (Auckland) [2014] NZMVDT 127 (5 November 2014)

Last Updated: 18 December 2014

Decision No: AK 110 /2014
Reference No. MVD 163/14

IN THE MATTER of the Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003

AND

IN THE MATTER of a dispute

BETWEEN DONALD STEWART NELSON

Purchaser

AND MOTOR 1 LIMITED

Trader

BEFORE THE MOTOR VEHICLE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL

Mr C H Cornwell, Barrister & Solicitor, Adjudicator
Mr S D Gregory, Assessor

HEARING at Auckland on 3 November 2014

APPEARANCES

Mr D S Nelson, the purchaser

Mr G Stevenson, support person for the purchaser

Mr M Lewis, director representing the trader

DECISION

Background

[1] On 30 May 2014 Mr Nelson (“the purchaser”) agreed to buy, sight unseen, a 2007 Honda Crossroad registration HLL670 (“the vehicle”) from Motor 1 Limited (“the trader”) for $15,480 including on road costs. The purchaser claims the vehicle has serious faults and he has rejected it. He seeks a refund of the purchase price and other costs. The purchaser also claims that he was misled by the trader’s advertising of the vehicle on TradeMe.

[2] The trader’s position prior to the hearing was that the purchaser was not entitled to reject the vehicle because he had, after requiring the trader to replace the vehicle’s left headlamp assembly, not given the trader a reasonable time within which to do so. Second, the trader says that the other faults with the vehicle’s mirrors, wiper blades and tyres are not failures of substantial character as the purchaser claims, but are minor faults which the trader is able and willing to repair but the purchaser did not given the trader the opportunity to do so. The trader denies that there was anything in its advertisement on TradeMe which was misleading. During the hearing the purchaser produced fresh evidence to show that the vehicle had been accident damaged before he bought it and the trader acknowledged that the repairs to the vehicle did not appear to be satisfactory.

[3] Pursuant to clause 10 of Schedule 1 of the Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003 the Tribunal has appointed Mr Gregory as expert assessor to assist in the determination of the complaint. Mr Gregory took the oath required by clause 10(2) of Schedule 1 to that Act. As an assessor Mr Gregory assisted the adjudicator.

The Issues
[4] The issues are:
[a] Was the vehicle of acceptable quality as defined in s7 of the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (“the Act”) at the time of sale?
[b] If the vehicle was not of acceptable quality did the purchaser require the trader to remedy the defects within a reasonable time in accordance with s19 of the Act?
[c] Do the vehicle’s faults constitute a failure of substantial character?
[d] Did the trader’s advertising misrepresent the vehicle to the purchaser?

Issue [a]: Was the vehicle of acceptable quality as defined in s7 of the Act at the time of sale?

Relevant legislation
[5] Section 6 of the Act imposes on a supplier and the manufacturer of consumer goods "a guarantee that the goods are of acceptable quality." Section 2 of the Act defines "goods" as including "vehicles.”

[6] The expression "acceptable quality" was, at the time of sale, defined in s7 of the Act as follows:
“7 Meaning of acceptable quality
(1) For the purposes of section 6, goods are of acceptable quality if they are as–
(a) fit for all the purposes for which goods of the type in question are commonly
supplied; and
(b ) acceptable in appearance and finish; and
(c) free from minor defects: and
(d) safe; and
(e) durable, ¾
as a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the state and condition of the
goods, including any hidden defects, would regard as acceptable, having regard to ¾
(f) the nature of the goods:
(g) the price (where relevant):
(h) any statements made about the goods on any packaging or label on the
goods:
(i) any representation made about the goods by the supplier or the
manufacturer
(j) all other relevant circumstances of the supply of the goods.

(2) Where any defects in goods have been specifically drawn to the consumer’s
attention before he or she agreed to the supply, then notwithstanding that a
reasonable consumer may not have regarded the goods as acceptable with
those defects, the goods will not fail to comply with the guarantee as to
acceptable quality by reason only of those defects.

(3) Where goods are displayed for sale or hire, the defects that are to be treated
as having been specifically drawn to the consumer’s attention for the purposes
of subsection (2) of this section are those disclosed on a written notice
displayed with the goods.

(4) Goods will not fail to comply with the guarantee of acceptable quality if—
(a) The goods have been used in a manner, or to an extent which is
inconsistent with the manner or extent of use that a reasonable consumer
would expect to maintain from the goods; and
(b) The goods would have complied with the guarantee of acceptable quality if
they had not been used in that manner or to that extent.

(5) A reference in subsections (2) and (3) of this section to a defect means any
failure of the goods to comply with the guarantee of acceptable quality.”

[7] In considering whether or not goods meet the guarantee of acceptable quality the Tribunal must consider the quality elements as set out in s7(1)(a) to (e) of the Act as modified by the factors set out in section 7(1)(f) to (j) from the perspective of a “reasonable consumer”. The test is an objective one; it is not a view of those factors from the purchasers’ subjective perspective.

[8] In Stephens v Chevron Motor Court Limited [1996] DCR1, the District Court held that the correct approach to the Act was first to consider whether the vehicle was of “acceptable quality”. If the vehicle was not of acceptable quality, the next point to consider was whether the purchaser required the trader to remedy any faults within a reasonable time in accordance with s19 of the Act. If the failure to comply with the guarantee of acceptable quality was of a “substantial character” within the meaning of s21, or if the faults cannot be remedied, the Tribunal is directed to ask whether the purchaser exercised his right to reject the vehicle within a reasonable time.

Application of facts to relevant law
[9] The purchaser saw the vehicle advertised on TradeMe, telephoned the trader on 30 May 2014 and agreed to buy the vehicle for the advertised price. He lodged a deposit of $1,000 into the trader’s bank account on the same day. On 3 June 2014 the purchaser flew from Wellington to Auckland. He was collected at Auckland Airport by the trader’s salesman and taken to its sales premises in Penrose where he completed the purchase of the vehicle by signing the Vehicle Offer and Sale Agreement, a Consumer Information Notice, a collateral credit sales agreement with UDC Finance Limited and paid the trader a further $6,500. The purchaser had the opportunity to inspect the vehicle before he completed the transaction on 3 June 2014. The vehicle had been issued with a new warrant of fitness by the trader on 3 June 2014. The purchaser then drove the vehicle to his home in Lower Hutt.

[10] The purchaser says that when he examined the vehicle a few days later he noticed that the off-side headlamp had moisture/water in it and was not working on low-beam. On 12 June the purchaser sent the trader photographs of the moisture on the inside of the headlamp assembly with a note suggesting he have the headlamp checked by Mascar Motors in Lower Hutt. The trader agreed to this and the vehicle was seen by Mascar Motors on 17 June. Mascar Motors were unable to source a replacement headlamp for the vehicle, a Japanese import, and on 18 June the purchaser contacted Honda Cars in Wellington who advised him that they did not stock parts for Honda imports.

[11] On 19 June the purchaser contacted the trader’s salesman who promised to send the purchaser a replacement headlamp assembly. When the purchaser had not received the headlamp by 25 June he emailed the trader’s sales manager. The trader responded the same day saying it would import a headlamp lens from Japan and that it would take seven days (later the same day amended to ten working days) to arrive.

[12] On 9 July 2014 the purchaser took the vehicle to VTNZ at Upper Hutt for a warrant of fitness inspection which it failed for the following reasons:
*front screen wipers torn X2
*water/moisture inside left/hand head light units
*L/H low beam n/w & check alignment
*snow tyres below min tread (front)
* Drivers wing mirror loose
The vehicle’s odometer at the time that WOF inspection was done was 109,616kms or 2,468kms more than at the date of supply to the purchaser.

[13] On 10 July the trader sent an email to the purchaser to say that the headlamp was in customs.

[14] On 10 July the purchaser sent the trader a letter in which he purported to reject the vehicle claiming it had serious faults. The serious faults the purchaser claimed the vehicle had were the reasons given by VTNZ for failing the vehicle the WOF described in paragraph 12 (above), and “handling issues at motorway speeds of 80- 100kph.” In addition to a refund of the purchase price the purchaser required the trader to refund his airfares to travel to Auckland to buy the vehicle, his fuel costs to drive it back to Wellington, and the cost of the VTNZ inspection.

[15] The trader replied immediately by email to the purchaser saying that it felt it had been responsive to his concerns and it wanted to see them rectified. The trader’s email said that it thought, (until two days previously), that the only issue it had agreed with the purchaser that needed to be rectified was the replacement of the left hand headlamp because of an issue with condensation. It said that the purchaser had been notified that the trader had ordered a new headlamp from Japan. The headlamp was at that time in New Zealand at Customs awaiting clearance and the trader expected it to be released very soon when it would be sent to a repairer and installed at the trader’s cost, as had been explained to the purchaser. The trader’s email had attached to it a copy of a pre-purchase appraisal done for the trader by the Automobile Association dated 5 February 2014 at 107,120kms. The appraisal was stated to expire on 5 April 2014. It appraised the vehicle as being in above average condition for its age and mileage. The trader promised in its email that when it sent the headlamp to be fitted it would also have the following work done on the vehicle at the trader’s expense:
a) to replace the front screen wipers;
b) to replace two front tyres; and
c) to have the driver’s wing mirror tightened.
The trader asked the purchaser to explain what the issue was with the passenger’s mirror.

[16] The purchaser replied to the trader’s email by letter dated 14 July rejecting the trader’s offer to remedy the vehicle’s faults and repeating his decision contained in his letter of 10 July to the trader to reject the vehicle.

[17] The trader denies that the vehicle’s headlamp had condensation in it at the time the vehicle was supplied to the purchaser. It says that it was not aware until 12 June that there was a fault with condensation in the headlamp and it agreed on 13 June to the purchaser having the vehicle’s headlight looked at by Mascar Motors but it was not until 19 June that the trader was told by the purchaser that the headlamp issue was anything more than simple condensation and that the vehicle had been taken to VTNZ and Honda Cars Wellington. The trader immediately had Mr Ching, its vehicle buyer and spare parts manager, contact the purchaser to get more information about the headlamp in order to ensure that he sourced the correct part from Japan. Mr Ching ordered the replacement headlamp from the Japanese supplier on 20 June and requested the supplier to air freight it to New Zealand. The Japanese supplier invoiced the trader and the trader made payment for the new part on 24 June. The trader notified the purchaser on 25 June that delivery of the replacement headlamp would be within 10 working days. The headlamp was sent to New Zealand on 27 June and NZ Post sent a letter by mail to the trader’s part supplier on 2 July saying the part was being held by NZ Customs. The headlamp assembly was not delivered to the trader before the purchaser sent the trader his email rejecting the vehicle on 10 July 2014. The purchaser had therefore allowed the trader from 20 June until 10 July to remedy the faulty headlamp; a period of 16 working days.

[18] At the hearing the purchaser, without having given either the Tribunal or the trader any notice, produced an undated and unsigned report he had obtained from Heretaunga Collision Repair Centre (“HCRC”) to whom he had taken the vehicle for inspection on 28 October 2014. He also produced a bundle of 23 photographs showing damage to the front of the vehicle. The reason for the inspection was that the trader had apparently requested the purchaser to find out why the left hand headlamp was leaking. The Managing Director of HCRC, Mr Biggs, stated in the report that when the vehicle’s front bumper was removed to remove the head lamp he had noted damage to the lower sub frame cover on the right side at the bottom of the bumper- it had a tear hole in it. There were cable ties securing the guard liner. Mr Biggs also refers in the HCRC report to finding substantial structural damage to the sub frame on the lower right side which is what the suspension, steering and engine components are bolted to. He reported large impact damage to the front lower subframe with surface rust. Mr Biggs sates that in his opinion it is not fresh damage. The impact has shifted the sub frame to the rear and Mr Biggs states that this can change the vehicle’s wheel alignment geometry.

The Tribunal’s findings on issue [a]
[19] The first issue the Tribunal has to decide is whether the vehicle complied with the guarantee of acceptable quality in s6 of the Act at the time of sale. In order to decide the Tribunal has had regard to the factors in s7 of the Act. First, to the nature of the goods; in this case a seven year old Honda Crossroad Japanese imported vehicle with 107,148kms on its odometer at the time of sale. Second, to the price of $14,995, and $350 on road costs. The vehicle had been supplied with a new warrant of fitness at the time of sale but unfortunately the trader had issued this itself and the purchaser was not convinced that the warrant of fitness inspection had been rigorously undertaken by the trader. The Tribunal records that it considers it imprudent for a motor vehicle trader to use its own employees to undertake warrant of fitness inspections of vehicles it intends to sell because this inevitably raises a suggestion that the trader’s staff have not examined such vehicle’s rigorously and objectively.

[20] The Tribunal thinks the vehicle probably had at least five faults at the time of sale or within a short time after it was sold. First, there was very probably moisture and a blown bulb in the left front headlamp because the purchaser noticed this when he examined the vehicle after driving it from Auckland and he also produced photographs which show there was moisture in the headlamp. The VTNZ inspection on 9 July 2014 recorded water/moisture in the left hand headlight units and also that the left hand low beam was not working. Second, the same VTNZ inspection recorded that the front screen wipers were torn, the two front tyres were below the minimum tread depth and the driver’s wing mirror was loose. In addition the HCRC report and the photographs taken by Mr Biggs especially photographs #14, 15 and 16 clearly show substantial structural damage to the vehicle which was probably missed during the vehicle’s compliance inspection.

[21] The Tribunal considers that a reasonable consumer paying $15,480 for a seven year old vehicle would probably not regard the vehicle as being of acceptable quality with these defects.

Conclusion on issue [a]
[22] The vehicle, particularly because of the impact damage to its sub frame and also because of the moisture and blown bulb in its left front headlamp, worn wiper blades, worn front tyres and loose wing mirror was not free of minor defects or as durable as a reasonable consumer would regard as acceptable for a vehicle of this age, mileage and price. The Tribunal therefore concludes it did not, at the time of sale, comply with the guarantee of acceptable quality in the Act.
Issue [b]: Did the purchaser require the trader to remedy the defects within a reasonable time in accordance with s19 of the Act?

Relevant legislation
[23] Section 18 of the Act provides as follows:
“18 Options against suppliers where goods do not comply with guarantees
(1) Where a consumer has a right of redress against the supplier in accordance with this Part in respect of the failure of any goods to comply with a guarantee, the consumer may exercise the following remedies:
(2) Where the failure can be remedied, the consumer may ¾
(a) require the supplier to remedy the failure within a reasonable time in accordance with section 19:
(b) where a supplier who has been required to remedy a failure refuses or neglects to do so, or does not succeed in doing so within a reasonable time, ¾
(i) have the failure remedied elsewhere and obtain from the supplier all reasonable costs incurred in having the failure remedied; or
(ii) subject to section 20, reject the goods in accordance with section 22.

(3) Where the failure cannot be remedied or is of a substantial character within the meaning of Section 21, the consumer may ¾
(a) subject to section 20, reject the goods in accordance with section 22; or
(b) obtain from the supplier damages in compensation for any reduction in
value of the goods below the price paid or payable by the consumer for the
goods.

(4) In addition to the remedies set out in subsection (2) and subsection (3), the
consumer may obtain from the supplier damages for any loss or damage to the
consumer resulting from the failure (other than loss or damage through
reduction in value of the goods) which was reasonably foreseeable as liable to
result from the failure."

Application of law to facts
[24] The Tribunal considers that each of the four minor defects this vehicle had were capable of being readily and reasonably cheaply remedied. It does not consider that the existence of any of the minor faults, although necessary to be remedied in order to obtain a warrant of fitness, made the vehicle unsafe. The purchaser therefore had the obligation in accordance with s18(2)(a) of the Act to require the trader to remedy each defect and the trader, by the same subsection of the Act, had the obligation to do so within a reasonable time of being asked to do so. The purchaser acknowledged in the course of giving his evidence that he had not required the trader to remedy the faults with the worn wiper blades, the worn front tires and the loose driver’s wing mirror before he purported to reject the vehicle on 10 July 2014. However he claimed that the trader had more than a reasonable time to replace the left front headlamp and had failed to replace the headlamp within a reasonable time.

[25] The facts show that the purchaser told the trader that the vehicle had moisture in it on 12 June and the trader agreed to the vehicle being taken to Mascar Motors. However the purchaser did not require the trader to remedy the defect until 19 June. The trader produced copies of emails it had sent to prove that it acted promptly in ordering a replacement left headlamp assembly from Japan on 20 June and paid the supplier for the part on 24 June and the following day the trader informed the purchaser that it expected to have the headlamp within ten working days (ie about 9 July). However the trader did not receive the headlamp until 16 July by which time the purchaser had purported to reject the vehicle by email sent to the trader on 10 July. The Tribunal accepts the trader’s explanation for the 20 working day delay in obtaining the headlamp assembly from Japan as being due to the part being delayed in New Zealand Customs awaiting a release from the supplier’s New Zealand agent. Taking these facts into account the Tribunal does not consider that the trader’s failure to source the headlamp assembly was unreasonably long and it believes the purchaser should have allowed the trader a slightly longer period of time to obtain the part from Japan before he rejected the vehicle . Hence the purchaser did not comply with s18(2)(a) of the Act and require the trader to remedy the head lamp issue and the other three minor faults with the vehicle before he rejected the vehicle on the grounds of the existence of those faults.

Conclusion on issue [b]:
[26] The purchaser required the trader to remedy the vehicle’s headlamp assembly and the trader attempted to do so. However the Tribunal finds that the purchaser did not allow the trader a reasonable time in which to do so. The Tribunal also finds that the purchaser did not require the trader to remedy the defective windscreen wiper blades, worn front tires or the loose driver’s wing mirror before he purported to reject the vehicle. The Tribunal does not consider therefore that the purchaser had any basis on which to reject the vehicle under the Act at the time he did so.

Issue [c]: Do the vehicle’s faults constitute a failure of substantial character?

Relevant law
[27] Section 21 of the Act defines the circumstances in which a failure to comply with the guarantee as to acceptable quality will be regarded as being a failure of a substantial character for the purposes of s18(3) of the Act. Section 21 of the Act provides as follows:
“ 21 Failure of substantial character
For the purposes of section 18(3), a failure to comply with a guarantee is of a substantial character in any case where ¾
(a) the goods would not have been acquired by a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the nature and extent of the failure; or

(b) the goods depart in 1 or more significant respects from the description by which they were supplied or, where they were supplied by reference to a sample or demonstration model, from the sample or demonstration model; or

(c) the goods are substantially unfit for a purpose for which goods of the type in question are commonly supplied or, where section 8(1) applies, the goods are unfit for a particular purpose made known to the supplier or represented by the supplier to be a purpose for which the goods would be fit, and the goods cannot easily and within a reasonable time be remedied to make them fit for such purpose; or

(d) the goods are not of acceptable quality within the meaning of section 7

because they are unsafe."

Application of law to facts
[28] The Tribunal considers, on the basis of the HCRC report and the photographs showing the poorly repaired damage to the vehicle’s front lower sub frame that the vehicle would not have been acquired by a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the nature and extent of the damage. The Tribunal’ Assessor considers the vehicle will need a new sub frame and probably some straightening of the chassis. The Tribunal was not provided with any information by the purchaser as to the likely cost of repairing the vehicle but the Tribunal’s Assessor considers that it will be upwards of $1,800 for the replacement of the sub frame alone and will require repair work to be certified by an engineer. The Tribunal therefore considers that the vehicle’s structural damage amounts to a failure of substantial character in terms of s21(a) of the Act.

Conclusion on issue [c]
[29] The vehicle’s poorly repaired structural damage amounts to a failure to comply with the guarantee of acceptable quality of a substantial character. The purchaser is entitled to reject the vehicle in terms of s18(3)(a) of the Act.

Issue [d]: Did the trader’s advertising misrepresent the vehicle to the purchaser?

[30] The purchaser claimed in his application that he had been misled by statements in the trader’s TradeMe advertisement in particular that the vehicle was “AA Appraised, report available” and the statement “CITY MOTOR GROUP- We are Your Happy Motoring Place”.

[31] The purchaser’s evidence was that he did not request to see a copy of the AA Appraisal referred to in the trader’s advertisement before he bought the vehicle but when a copy was sent to him by the trader in July he noticed that the report had been issued by the AA following an inspection of the vehicle on 5 February 2014 and that the AA Report had an expiry date of 5 April 2014, two months before he bought the vehicle. The Tribunal fails to see how the purchaser was misled by a report he did not read before he bought the vehicle. The purchaser’s complaint regarding the trader’s description of itself as a “Happy Motoring Place” has no merit; the words are meaningless drivel and puffery and no reasonable person would put any reliance on those words. The Tribunal does not consider that the purchaser was misled or deceived or that any reasonable person would have been misled by the trader’s TradeMe advertisement.

Conclusion
[32] As a result of the Tribunal finding that the vehicle did not comply with the guarantee of acceptable quality and that the poor damage repairs to the vehicle constitute a failure of substantial character entitling the purchaser to reject the vehicle the Tribunal will :
[a] Uphold the purchaser’s rejection of the vehicle with effect from 3 November 2014;
[b] vest in the trader the rights and obligations of the purchaser under the Credit Sale Agreement between the purchaser and UDC Finance Limited dated 3 June 2014 (“the Credit Sale Agreement”) with effect from 3 November 2014;
[c] order the trader to repay the purchaser’s deposit of $7,500;
[d] order the trader to repay to the purchaser:
[i] the capital component of all payments made to UDC Finance Ltd by the purchaser under the Credit Sale Agreement from 3 June to 3 November 2014 and
[ii] the total of all payments (both interest and principal)(if any) made by the purchaser to UDC Finance Ltd under the Credit Sale Agreement on or after 3 November 2014;
[e] pay to the purchaser the cost of the Wellington Automotive & Electrical Ltd invoice of $47.50 and the cost paid to Heretaunga Collision Repair Centre of $166.75; a total of $214.25
[f] order the trader to collect the vehicle at its expense from the purchaser in Lower Hutt.

[33] The sums claimed by the purchaser for a shuttle to Wellington Airport, his airfares to Auckland to buy the vehicle, and his fuel costs to drive the vehicle back to Wellington on 3 June are not recoverable in terms of s18(4) of the Act because they are not damages resulting from the failure of the vehicle and were not reasonably foreseeable as liable to result from the failure.

[34] The purchaser’s costs of attending the hearing and filing his application are not recoverable because the Tribunal only has a limited ability to award costs under cl 14 of the Schedule to the Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003. That clause provides as follows:
“14 Disputes Tribunal may award costs in certain circumstances
(1)The Disputes Tribunal may award costs to or against a party to any proceedings before it only if,-
(a) in the opinion of the Disputes Tribunal,-
(i) the proceedings are frivolous or vexatious or ought not to have been brought:
(ii) the matter ought reasonably to have been settled before proceeding to a hearing but that the party against whom an award of costs is to be made refused, without reasonable excuse, to take part in the discussions referred to in clause 5(1)(b) or acted in a contemptuous or improper manner during those discussions; or
(b) any party after receiving notice of a hearing, fails to attend the hearing without good cause.
(2) In any case to which subclause (1) applies, the Disputes Tribunal may order a party to pay---
(a) to the Crown all, or any part of either or both of the following:

(i) the reasonable costs of the Disputes Tribunal hearing:
(ii) the fees and expenses of any witness that have been paid or are payable by the Crown; or

(b) to another party all, or any part of the reasonable costs of that other party in connection with the proceedings.”

[35] In this application the trader attempted to mediate a resolution to the dispute by offering to refund the purchaser with either the purchase price or repair the vehicle but unfortunately the purchaser rejected that offer. The Tribunal, with regret, considers that it is unable to order the trader to pay the purchaser’s costs of travelling to Auckland for the hearing.

Orders

1.The purchaser is entitled to reject the Honda crossroad registration HNF965 with effect from 3 November 2014.

2. The purchaser’s rights and obligations under the Credit Sale Agreement between the purchaser and UDC Finance Limited dated 3 June 2014 (“the Credit Sale Agreement”) shall vest in the trader with effect from 3 November 2014 and the trader shall pay to the purchaser:
[a] the capital component of all payments made to UDC Finance Ltd by the purchaser under the Credit Sale Agreement from 3 June to 3 November 2014 and
[b] the total of all payments (both interest and principal)(if any) made by the purchaser to UDC Finance Ltd under the Credit Sale Agreement on or after 3 November 2014;

3. If there is any dispute between the parties as to the amount payable to the purchaser in terms of order 2, leave is reserved to either party to refer that matter to the Tribunal for determination with the unsuccessful party paying the Tribunal’s hearing costs.

4. The trader shall immediately pay to the purchaser $7,714.25 comprising the following amounts:
[a] the purchaser’s deposit of $7,500; and
[b] the cost of the Wellington Automotive & Electrical Ltd invoice of $47.50 and the cost paid to Heretaunga Collision Repair Centre of $166.75; a total of $214.25.

5. The trader shall, at its expense arrange to collect the vehicle from the purchaser’s residence in Lower Hutt.

DATED this 5th day of November 2014

C.H Cornwell
Adjudicator