ACL Refund Rights in Australia: What Manufacturers Often Say — and Why They’re Wrong
If you’ve bought a faulty car, caravan, or appliance, you probably know that the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) gives you repair, replacement, or refund rights. But when you ask for a refund, manufacturers and sellers often push back with legal‑sounding excuses.
Here are the most common things they say — and what the law actually says.
- “We’ve repaired it, so the matter is closed.”
Not true.
Under the ACL, a minor fault can be fixed by the supplier — that’s their choice.
But a major fault gives you, the consumer, the right to choose a refund or replacement.
If the fault is major, a repair doesn’t erase your right to reject the product and get your money back.
The Federal Court made this clear in ACCC v Jayco Corporation Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1672.
In short: If the problem is major, you decide what happens — not the supplier.
- “We can only refund you a depreciated amount.”
No.
Section 263(4)(a) of the ACL says that if you reject faulty goods, the supplier must repay the full amount you paid. There’s no rule allowing deductions for use, age, or depreciation.
This was confirmed in Vautin v BY Winddown Inc [2018] FCA 426 and again in Jayco.
Example: If you paid $80,000 for a car that later turns out to be faulty, you’re entitled to $80,000 — not a reduced amount.
- “It’s a complex product — some issues are expected.”
Complex products like cars and caravans can have minor issues, but that doesn’t excuse poor quality.
In Jayco, the court said consumers can tolerate small defects if they can be easily fixed. But multiple ongoing problems can add up to a major failure — even if each problem on its own seems minor.
The more expensive the product, the higher the standard the law expects. A pricey caravan or vehicle should not have repeated or serious issues.
- “The recall was precautionary — your unit was fine.”
A recall means the manufacturer has admitted there’s a defect. Saying it was “precautionary” doesn’t take away your rights.
In Medtel Pty Ltd v Courtney [2003], the court said products are not of acceptable quality if they have a defect that raises the risk of failure, even if your own product hasn’t yet failed.
Bottom line: If your product is part of a safety recall, you can still have ACL rights.
- “We couldn’t reproduce the fault in the workshop.”
That doesn’t mean the problem isn’t real.
In ACCC v Ford [2018], the company refused to act on problems customers couldn’t show on demand, even though they knew those problems were intermittent. The court held Ford’s approach was wrong — and fined them $10 million.
You don’t lose your rights just because the tradeperson can’t make the fault appear on the spot.
- “You’ve left it too long to reject.”
The law gives you a reasonable time to reject goods after the fault becomes clear — not a fixed short deadline.
A defect is considered “apparent” only when you know the problem and how serious it is (Vautin v BY Winddown Inc [2018]).
If it’s unclear or hard to diagnose, the clock hasn’t started.
Also, the supplier — not you — must prove you’ve waited too long.
- “You need to let us try to fix it first.”
Only true for minor problems.
If the fault is major, you don’t have to agree to repairs. You can ask for a refund or replacement immediately.
In both Jayco and Mazda Australia [2021], the courts found that telling consumers they had to accept repairs first was misleading and unlawful.
Getting Advice
If a supplier:
- limits your refund,
- says previous repairs close your claim, or
- insists you waited too long —
start by asking: Is the problem a “major failure” under section 260 of the ACL?
Getting legal advice can help you confirm your rights before accepting any offer.
Cases cited:
- ACCC v Ford Motor Company of Australia Ltd [2018] FCA 703
- ACCC v Jayco Corporation Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1672
- ACCC v Mazda Australia Pty Ltd [2021] FCA 1493
- Capic v Ford Motor Company of Australia Pty Ltd [2021] FCA 715
- Medtel Pty Ltd v Courtney [2003] FCAFC 151
- Vautin v BY Winddown Inc [2018] FCA 426
- W & S Pollock & Co v Macrae 1922 SC 192
Disclaimer: This publication contains comments of a general and introductory nature only and is provided as an information service. It is not intended to be relied upon as, nor is it a substitute for specific professional legal advice. You should always speak to us and obtain legal advice before taking any action relating to matters raised in this publication.
