John v JB HI-FI Group Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCATCD 29

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: John v JB HI-FI Group Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCATCD 29 Hearing dates: 13 February 2019 Date of orders: 27 March 2019 Decision date: 27 March 2019 Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division Before: P Moran, Senior Member Decision: 1. The Application of each of the Applicant's is dismissed. Catchwords: CONSUMER CLAIM - sale of goods - defective television - whether the Respondent was the supplier Legislation Cited: Fair Trading Act 1987 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Anthony John (First Applicant) Stephen Davies (Second Applicant) Susan Davies (Third Applicant) Andrew Davies (Fourth Applicant) JB Hi-Fi Group Pty Limited (Respondent) Representation: First Applicant (no appearance) Second Applicant (in person) Third Applicant (in person) Fourth Applicant (no appearance) Respondent (A Stenlake) File Number(s): GEN 18/26825 Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background/Application 1. By Application lodged with the Tribunal on 15 June 2018 Anthony John (First Applicant), Stephen Davies (Second Applicant), Susan Davies (Third Applicant) and Andrew Davies (Fourth Applicant) contend that the Respondent (J B Hi Fi Group Pty Limited) sold a Sony 4K3D television (the Television) with various issues and faults as described in the Application being: 1. Faulty screen 2. Busted white pixels 3. Distorted picture 4. Black smear appear [sic] on television 5. Faulty ethernet/wireless card 6. Sound distortion 7. Applications crash 8. Bluetooth device fault with remote control unresponsive 9. Inbuilt camera for skype video conferencing not working 10. No support for inbuilt camera useless 11. No android operated apps appear on TV 12. Advised was an android TV with 200 Hz 13. Advised have [sic] five (5) year warranty on unit with extra protection. 1. The Application asserts that attempts were made to contact J B Hi Fi several times to have the product assessed but that the Respondent "did nothing" and "did not respond" to the Applicants concerns. The Applicants plead that there were emails, faxes and telephone calls to the Respondent to have the Television booked in for a service and for a pick-up of the unit to be arranged. They allege they had the Television assessed by a technician and the manufacturer confirming that there are major faults with the unit; further, that advice by the technician is to the effect that the television was difficult to repair and that newer models would not be suitable for replacement as they did not have the same level of specification that the Applicants were seeking. The Application refers to advice being received that the only two options were replacement or refund. 2. An order is sought for the payment of $2301.00. 3. The Application also seeks an extension of time for the orders sought.