Refund for rust bucket
A student is to be refunded thousands of dollars from someone who sold him a rust-riddled Toyota Hilux advertised as ‘‘a nice vehicle’’.
The seller’s efforts to get out of paying the refund on a technicality also failed.
In a recently released Motor Vehicles Disputes Tribunal decision, adjudicator James Mcherron said there was no way Peter James Jones would have purchased the Hilux from Scott Henry Pemberton knowing it would immediately need such expensive repairs.
The vehicle in question, a 1990 Toyota Hilux, was sold by
Pemberton, trading as SP Auto Sales, in September last year to Jones for $12,995.
It was advertised on Trademe as ‘‘certainly a nice vehicle that will give the new owner years of reliability and enjoyment’’.
Jones asked Pemberton multiple times about the condition of the ute, including if it was showing rust.
Pemberton told him the previous owner painted it recently, so there were no rust issues.
Jones found some minor rust around the tray and seat belt mounts when he viewed the ute in Palmerston North in September, but thought it was otherwise fine. But it failed a warrant of fitness check in December, with evidence of rust in the right front cab, left engine bay, left front floor, right front cab mounts, rear suspension and front inner guards.
It failed the check, while a panel beater estimated it would cost $9000 to fix.
Pemberton accepted some work needed doing, but he wanted a Palmerston North-based panel beater who quoted $2600 to do it.
Mcherron said the car was clearly in poor condition.
Pemberton argued he should not have to pay because Jones was going to use the Hilux as a work vehicle for a firewood business, which would void any Consumer Guarantees Act claim.
But someone who witnessed the conversation between the pair said there was no discussion of using the ute for work.
Jones did, however, sign a sale agreement which had a clause opting him out of any Consumer Guarantees Act claims.
He said he had mentioned needing a vehicle to get to job sites and also mentioned he was planning to sell wood from his arborist work. But that venture did not go ahead, and he said he never intended using the ute for work.
Mcherron said there was a lack of negotiation about the clause, so it was not fair for Jones to be bound by it.
Jones was within his rights to reject the Hilux due to its condition, so Pemberton had to pay a refund.
Pemberton must also take the Hilux back.