Seems the dealer dropped his pants at the last moment. Very fortunate for the purchaser. We may never know what the ruling would have been.
rpvr,
Feb 9, 7:50am
My guess is that the tribunal referee told them the dealer would have to fix the car, and they were given time to think about this and for both parties to indicate this was acceptable. If the dealer had declined to accept, then the ruling would have been dealer takes the car back at a fair market value prior to the crankshaft failure. A full purchase price refund would not have been given, as that would really have been betterment.
kazbanz,
Feb 10, 1:15pm
So to clarify--WAS a ruling made or not? IE-despite what happened in the 15 minutes was a decision made ?
kazbanz,
Feb 10, 1:23pm
So the Christchurch adjudicator is a woman?
elect70,
Feb 10, 3:46pm
Yep thats how they work it gives the other party chance to rectify it without any further action good job . Im msure Audi will reimburse the dealer for his time
gooff,
Feb 10, 6:01pm
No a ruling was not made by the adjudicator. The dealer settled by agreeing to fix the car. HOWEVER, if in 4 weeks time nothing has come of it and I don't cancel the second hearing, then she will make a ruling.
muppet_slayer,
Feb 10, 6:21pm
Because crankshaft do not normally break, under normal conditions, especially not at that mileage no matter how fast they were clocked up, and because it broke under normal conditions it must have had a fault at manufacture hence the dealers/manufacturers being held responsible for said fault.
kazbanz,
Feb 10, 6:39pm
interesting ! So it wasn't Mr McHerron or Mr Carter then? that's rather interesting -Mr Mcherron deals with most of the south island cases
gooff,
Feb 10, 6:45pm
Sorry, am I missing something. what are you trying to say?
rpvr,
Feb 11, 1:38pm
Was the case heard in the MVDT or the ordinary DT? I gather that the Disputes Tribunal can also hear motor vehicle cases, but the upper level is lower (i.e $30,000 compared to $100,000?)
kazbanz,
Feb 11, 2:35pm
as per the post below. was it a MVDT or a DT hearing? Mehh -doesn't matter--if it was MVDT itll come up in the report in a month or so
sw20,
Feb 11, 2:40pm
From post one it’s been the Disputes Tribunal.
tony9,
Feb 13, 4:33pm
Interesting the number of contributors here who are clearly in the industry but don't understand the CGA.
In the CGA, it is all about what a reasonable USER of the product or service would expect, not what a reasonable service person would expect.
It is the user that pays for the product or service, they should expect to pay no more at all, if a defect occurs which is unexpected and not fair wear and tear. Ideally after repair the item would be in the same overall condition prior to the defect, but that is pretty much impossible in most cases. But that is not the problem of the user and betterment cannot be recovered.
tony9,
Feb 13, 4:35pm
In this case, it is clear the dealer has read up on the CGA and realised they own 100% of the problem so bailed at the last minute.
bigfatmat1,
Feb 13, 5:21pm
I don't understand any of this. Why should the dealer lose out over this so called manufacturing issue. The dealer would be independent to Audi nz. So is out of pocket for someone else's fault surely the dispute lays with Audi nz not the dealership which is more than likely independent of Audi nz. if the dealership is owned and run by Audi nz it makes sense.
differentthings,
Feb 13, 7:29pm
no not at all. Read what the OP said about the judgement.
sw20,
Feb 13, 7:31pm
Because the CGA is between the retailer and the consumer. Not the manufacturer or distributor.
It’s up to the retailer to go back to the distributor or manufacturer.
differentthings,
Feb 13, 7:34pm
It was the best outcome of the 2 options. Give full refund of a 5 year older car with 50,000 more K's on it and still have to repair it or pay for parts/labour and send them on their way
differentthings,
Feb 13, 7:38pm
BTW. 24 hours X $40 = $960 plus about $1500 for parts (long block was free) add some GST so about 3g all up for the dealer so not that bad
bigfatmat1,
Feb 13, 8:24pm
its a second hand item with 125km on it 50 done by current customer. If that's the way the law is interpreted it's a bit silly imo
sw20,
Feb 13, 8:39pm
It was also probably a $60,000+ vehicle.
If you don’t like, it become an MP or campaign to have the law changed.
bigfatmat1,
Feb 13, 8:49pm
calm down I'm just saying it's silly imo.
kazbanz,
Feb 13, 9:51pm
Probably best to wait a couple of weeks and see what --if anything is actually published.
kazbanz,
Feb 13, 9:54pm
Lets just see whats published. Can someone else remember a South island MVDT adjudicator that was female ?Mr McHerron or Mr Carter are the only two i know of ? I have never heard of a dispute regarding a car dealer being referred to DT instead of MVDT. Generally DT will refer dealer cases to MVDT
tegretol,
Mar 5, 5:36pm
There are three adjudicators doing the SI MVDT and all are male. But the OP said it was the DT although there are no listings for this as of today. Can the OP come back and tell us what happened?
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.