Yet another CGA/warranty question - who pays for postage?

Forums › Off topic › Yet another CGA/warranty question - who pays for postage?

1 | 2

mattwnz

20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4795

#2290388 5-Aug-2019 17:14

sleemanj:

Unfortunately the CGA does not say this AFAIK, is giving some wishful thinking there.

More than happy to be proven wrong with cite of the appropriate section of the CGA, but as I say, I don't think it exists.

When people need professional advice, they tend to go to the professionals for that advice, in case it is going to be challenged. So has their interpretation actually been challenged by anyone with suitable qualifications to challenge it?

jonathan18

7415 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2850

ID Verified

Trusted

#2290546 5-Aug-2019 20:37

By 'professionals' I'm not sure to whom you're referring?

While I've not come across anyone quoting specific examples or case law to whether shipping charges can be considered consequential losses under subsection 18 (4), that Consumer, MBIE etc are generally supportive that they can, and the advice I received from MBIE is that in my specific case they are, is enough for me to feel I've got a strong case... if it comes to needing to go down that route

I just hope it doesn't have to do, for both my sake (the hassle to fight it) and for the retailer (the high cost that simply eats away at their margins). That said, I'm not prepared to pay $70 or so to ship the item back to Auckland to fix a fault that is clearly a design/manufacturing issue. While it's unfortunate the retailer is facing this issue, they have also elected to sell this product online to anyone in the country, and therefore have done so knowing (or should have known) they are liable to ensure the products they sell are fit for purpose etc.

I'm just hoping they find someone local to fix it (and they cover the costs), as I think that's a fair outcome for all.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#2290570 5-Aug-2019 21:17

Section 18(4)'s test for reasonably foreseeable damages simply mirrors the common law's doctrine of what is considered reasonably foreseeable. The Disputes Tribunal will simply put itself in the shoes of an informed and reasonable consumer and look at whether the costs (e.g. shipping) incurred by the consumer had a proper causal relationship between the failure to live up to the required guarantees under the CGA and whether the consumer took reasonable steps to mitigate his or her loss. By way of example, if you live right next to the manufacturer's warehouse, I don't think you can reasonably claim the costs of an urgent 60-minute courier there. If you live in Rotorua and selected a reasonable and reputable courier to send a failed electronics item to the retailer's one and only Auckland branch to exercise your rights to give them an opportunity to put it right, I can't see how the retailer can claim that this is not a reasonably foreseeable cost.

I advise consumers on their CGA rights as a volunteer in community law centres and have also provided professional advice to corporates on their CGA obligations. Much of the "advice" to the contrary in this thread aren't worth reading. Sorry to be blunt but it's yet another example of why most legal discussions involving non-lawyers aren't worth reading.

1 | 2