Tales of the Tribunal: Whiteware warriors tackle appliance misinformation

Tuesday, 24 December 2024

Three glasses of chilled water is a pretty poor effort from a $2679 fridge.

A couple were so disappointed at their new fridge’s limited chilled water reservoir they asked the Disputes Tribunal to let them have the $2679 appliance for free.

Whiteware and kitchen appliances are some of the more expensive items that households buy, so it’s no surprise the tribunal heard a lot of claims about them in 2024.

The tribunal hears small money claims up to $30,000 in value, resolving them quickly, and not involving expensive lawyers.

In the fridge case, which came before the tribunal in June, the couple complained their fridge gave them only two to three glasses of chilled water at a sitting, after which only regular room temperature water was available.

It wasn’t enough for even a dinner party of four diners to have a glass each.

The couple felt they had been mislead about the capabilities of the fridge, and that the retailer should face a stiff cost for that.

People with financial disputes of $30,000 or less can ask the Disputes Tribunal to settle them. (Video first published June 2022)

The tribunal referee decided “by a slim margin” that they should have been told about the limited capacity of the water chiller.

Under the Consumer Guarantees Act, and section 9 of the act, it says: “Where goods are supplied by description to a consumer, there is a guarantee that the goods correspond with the description”.

The couple did not read the manual before buying the fridge, but they did discuss the fridge with the retailer, and at that point were not told its water chiller capacity was so small.

The referee ruled: “While it would be reasonable for a consumer to expect that the dispensing function would have some limit to its capacity, two to three glasses of chilled water at a time is really quite limited and should therefore probably have been disclosed by the sales assistant when the dispensing function was being discussed.

The sales rep was “acting as a servant or agent of the manufacturer” when selling their goods, so the maker had breached the act.

The referee had no power to give the couple the fridge for free, but he could order the price be reduced by 5%, and that is what he did, with the retailer paying the couple $133.95.

Second hand trade

Because whiteware is so expensive, there’s a trade in second hand appliances.

When people buy from a private seller, in person or online, it’s a case of buyer beware, though private sellers must not mislead buyers, or face damages under the Contract and Commercial Law Act.

But when the seller is a professional trader, they are caught by the Consumer Guarantees and Fair Trading Acts.

Fridges are a commonly-traded secondhand appliance as they are so expensive new.

That happened in a case in June on an online sale, and then again in April, after a woman bought a $600 fridge with the retailer claiming it had a three-month warranty on it.

Within three months it stopped cooling food.

The retailer sent a technician to fix it, but the fridge continued not to work, and the business told the woman she had to bring the fridge into its shop to be fixed. The business was aware the woman was unable to manage to bring the fridge in herself.

Tribunal referee Nigel Wolland was not impressed. The fridge was not of acceptable quality under the Consumer Guarantees Act, and he ordered the business to take back the fridge and refund the woman’s money.

A costly mistake

A case from June highlighted a little-know piece of consumer protection law.

These days the cost of repairing a fridge means faults that once would have been fixed are now deemed ‘uneconomic’ to repair.

It centred around the sale of a fridge freezer in a private deal through an auction website.

The appliance was advertised as “was only used briefly and so would suit new buyer allowing you to make a significant saving on a new price”. That new price was $2249.99, the seller claimed.

But the fridge did not work. The buyer got in a technician, though it took over eight months for that to happen. He found “a modification to one of the pipes indicating the fridge been re-gassed, and that there was a gas leak deep inside the appliance that was uneconomic to repair.

The seller said the fridge was working when he sold it, and refused to take it back.

Tribunal referee JF Tunnicliffe was unable to determine that the fridge was not working when sold, so there was no proof the seller misrepresented its condition.

However, the statement made by the seller was not factually correct, and Tunnicliffe turned to the contractual mistakes provisions of the Contract and Commercial Law Act.

“One of the types of mistakes is one in which both parties make the same mistake,” Tunnicliffe said.

Oven doors should not fail unless the owner rests heavy things on them when open.

“After hearing evidence from both parties, [the seller] made it clear that he believed the fridge was working when he sold it. [the buyer] also believed the fridge would be in working condition, and that is a reasonable belief to form based on the wording in the advertisement.”

Where a mistake is found, the tribunal can grant compensation, and in this case, Tunnicliffe ordered compensation of $1371.75, including the full $1120 purchase price.

Weak oven door

A man bought a new oven for a rental property he owned. The oven door failed three times in quick succession in the first four months after the sale.

The business that sold the oven “firmly believes the fault lies with the use of the oven rather than any inherent fault,” the referee recorded.

It blamed the man’s tenants, though after the first visit, it refused to go again to view the oven.

The man’s tenant denies abusing the oven door by putting anything on it when it was open.

Under the Consumer Guarantees Act, the oven was not of acceptable quality, finding there was no evidence to blame the tenant for its failure.

The referee ordered a full refund of $1132.75.

The act also allowed for compensation for “consequential loss”.

“In this case I am persuaded the applicant is also entitled to the cost of installation, $398.81 given he is now facing this cost again with the installation of a replacement oven,” the referee said.

Short-life appliance parts

Many are convinced that items are being made to be less and less durable, trapping households into a cycle of constant repurchasing.

One household decided to fight back.

They had a 2008 cooktop in their kitchen. In 2020, the main element blew.

Wht then followed was a repair with a replacement element, which failed three years later, and then a second repair with a replacement element.

Angry at the repeated cost of replacement parts and repair, the householders took a claim to the tribunal.

And referee D Drennan accepted Consumer NZ’s view that a cooktop should last at least 15 years, however: “I am satisfied that it would be unreasonable to expect a manufacturer… to pay for repairs to a cooktop which had a failed element after 12 years use.”

But Drennan said the failure of the replacement element indicated it was not of acceptable quality under the Consumer Guarantees Act.

The manufacturer tried to pretend it had no obligation outside of supposed one-year “manufacturer warranties” for spare parts, which the referee found was not true.

“I consider a fair outcome is that G Ltd pay for the cost of the 2023 replacement of the 2020 Element, that is the cost of the replacement element and other related parts, and the electrician’s invoice, which totals $615.64,” Drennan ruled.