Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Motor Vehicles Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand |
Last Updated: 16 July 2019
IN THE MOTOR VEHICLE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN JOEL PINTO ZURITA
Purchaser
AND ICHOICE MOTOR LTD
Trader
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
||
MEMBERS OF TRIBUNAL
|
||
B R Carter, Barrister – Adjudicator
|
||
S Haynes, Assessor
|
||
|
||
HEARING at Auckland on 13 June 2019
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
APPEARANCES
|
||
J Pinto Zurita, Purchaser
G Pinto, Witness for the Purchaser
|
||
Q Liang, for the Trader
|
||
DATE OF DECISION 18 June 2019
|
||
|
_________________________________________________________________
DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
REASONS
Introduction
[1] On about 30 July 2018, Joel Pinto Zurita purchased a 2008 Subaru Impreza for $8,190 from Ichoice Motor Ltd. The vehicle had an odometer reading of 82,841 km at the time of sale.
[2] On 29 December 2018, the vehicle’s cambelt idler bearing failed, causing extensive damage to the vehicle’s engine. Mr Pinto Zurita has replaced the engine at a cost of $3,274.28 and now seeks to recover that cost from Ichoice Motor, alleging that the vehicle has not been of acceptable quality from the purposes of s 6 of the Consumer Guarantees Act 2003 (the Act).
[3] Ichoice Motor denies liability. It accepts that the vehicle has significant engine damage but says that Mr Pinto Zurita is not entitled to a remedy because the vehicle has been sufficiently durable. It also says that Mr Pinto Zurita had the vehicle repaired without giving it a reasonable opportunity to assess the vehicle and determine whether it should have liability for that engine damage.
The Issues
[4] Against this background, the sole issue requiring consideration in this case is whether the vehicle had a fault that breached the acceptable quality guarantee in s 6 of the Act?
Did the vehicle have a fault that breaches the acceptable quality guarantee?
[5] Section 6 of the Act imposes on suppliers and manufacturers 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” is defined in s 7 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,—
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—
(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:
(ha) the nature of the supplier and the context in which the supplier supplies 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.
[7] The acceptable quality guarantee is not indefinite and applies only for as long as is reasonable in the circumstances of each case, taking account of the quality elements as set out in s 7(1)(a)–(e) of the Act as modified by the factors set out in s 7(1)(f)–(j), from the perspective of a “reasonable consumer”. The test is an objective one; it is not a view of those factors from Mr Pinto Zurita’s subjective perspective.
[8] The finite nature of the guarantee is significant in this case, as Mr Pinto Zurita has brought a claim in respect of a $8,190, 10-year-old vehicle, which suffered significant engine damage due to a collapsed idler bearing nearly five months after purchase, by which time the vehicle had travelled more than 10,700 km.
[9] Mr Pinto Zurita and his daughter Gabriela Pinto, who is the primary driver of the vehicle, say that the vehicle has not been of acceptable quality because it has not been sufficiently durable. They say that the vehicle was a big investment for them and that it should have been free of such defects for much longer than it has been.
[10] Although I acknowledge that the purchase price is a lot of money for Mr Pinto Zurita, and that he had high expectations as to the quality and durability of the vehicle, I am nonetheless satisfied that the vehicle has been of acceptable quality because it has been as durable as a reasonable consumer would consider acceptable taking account of the factors listed in s 7(1) of the Act. I consider that a reasonable purchaser of a vehicle of this price, age and mileage must have realistic expectations as to its quality and durability and should understand that faults, that can be expensive to repair, may arise from time to time.
[11] In this case, the engine damage was not caused by any pre-existing defect with the engine, but by a worn idler bearing collapsing, which caused the cambelt to lose tension, allowing the cam gears to slip and the valves to contact the pistons. Mr Haynes, the Tribunal’s Assessor, advises that idler bearings are a component that degrade over time due to the ordinary wear and tear associated with using a vehicle. Mr Haynes says that it is not unusual for an idler bearing to fail in a Subaru Impreza of this age and mileage.
[12] Taking into account of the fact that the engine damage was caused by a worn idler bearing that was consistent with the age and mileage of the vehicle and the fact that the damage occurred nearly five months after purchase during which time the vehicle had travelled more than 10,000 km, I am satisfied that vehicle has been as durable as a reasonable consumer would consider acceptable.
[13] Mr Pinto Zurita’s application is therefore dismissed.
DATED at AUCKLAND this 18th day of June 2019
B.R. Carter
Adjudicator
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZMVDT/2019/125.html