Coliban Heights Pty Ltd v Citisolar Vic Pty Ltd

[2018] VSCA 191

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Contract
2. › Australian Consumer Law
3. › Termination of contract for supply of services
4. › Major failure
5. › Right to terminate under s 267(3)(a)
6. › Whether consumer's acceptance of goods connected with services inconsistent with termination
7. › Deemed rejection of goods under s 270(1)(c)
8. › Australian Consumer Law, ss 267, 268, 269, 270
1. Consumer Law
2. › Statutory guarantees
3. › Services
4. › Failure to comply with guarantee
5. › Major failure creating unsafe situation
6. › Remedies available to consumer
7. › Election between termination and compensation
8. › Australian Consumer Law, ss 60, 61, 267, 268
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Appeals from tribunals
3. › Appeal on question of law
4. › Jurisdictional requirement to state questions of law
5. › Failure to articulate questions of law in originating process
6. › Whether questions of law can be divined from grounds of appeal
7. › Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic), s 148
8. › Supreme Court (Miscellaneous Civil Proceedings) Rules 2008, r 4.06(1)(b)(v)

Quick Take

Under the ACL, a consumer who accepts goods connected with services (including by accepting rectification works) has not terminated the contract for services under s 267, because termination necessarily entails a deemed rejection of the connected goods under s 270(1)(c). Whether termination has occurred is a question of fact in every case. The question whether the right of termination under s 267 must be exercised within a reasonable time was expressly left open.