A court may assess the reduction in value of goods under s 272(1)(a) of the ACL without expert evidence, by forming a view as to the percentage reduction in utility as viewed by a reasonable consumer based on the evidence of the nature and consequences of the failures. The cost of replacing defective goods is not recoverable under s 272(1)(b) as reasonably foreseeable loss; that provision is limited to consequential losses beyond the performance interest. Where a manufacturer's repairs and replacements do not remedy the non-compliance with the guarantee of acceptable quality, s 271(6) does not preclude a claim for reduction in value. The question whether replacement goods provided by a manufacturer as goodwill constitute a 'supply' attracting the consumer guarantee was left open.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.