It pays to have a competent Expert.....
A true and correct reprint from a NCAT Determination - a copy can be made available for you to view.
The Tribunal was persuaded by the applicant's evidence of Mr Kannen in finding that the first respondent breached the contract of sale and the Australian Consumer Laws by misrepresenting the vehicle and providing a vehicle which was not of acceptable quality for a brand-new vehicle. The Tribunal could not find any liability against the manufacturer in respect of the transaction. As such the claim against the second respondent was dismissed.
14). The Tribunal took into account Section 13 of the Consumer Claims Act 1998. The Tribunal considered the diminishment of value as the most appropriate remedy in the matter as the applicant has now owned the vehicle for more than 12 months. In that regard, the only real evidence before the Tribunal was again that presented by Mr Kannen. The fact was that the respondents were poorly prepared and provided no real evidence to refute his minimum assessment of $7,500.00 or conversely establish their assessment of $3,000.00,