Customer Wins Refund for Faulty Refrigerator Repair
📌 In brief
A customer successfully obtained a refund of $1,057.85 from a repair service provider after the provider installed the wrong motherboard in her refrigerator, leading to a malfunction.
⚖️ Legal holding
A customer is entitled to a refund if a repair service provider fails to install the correct replacement part.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant successfully obtained a refund for a faulty refrigerator repair.
📚 Full judgment
The summary, holding and questions above are VadeLab’s own material. The official decision itself is published by the court, and we do not reproduce it on this page.
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The repair company installed the old motherboard instead of a new replacement, which was a fundamental breach of contract.
- The repair company overcharged for a control panel, despite its website stating it does not mark up parts.
- The repair company promised to do certain work for free, and therefore could not later charge for it.
- The customer's claim for damages was based on out-of-pocket losses due to the fundamental breach.
- The repair company was not entitled to payment for a service visit that the customer denied scheduling.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The customer's claim for punitive damages was not considered because it was not included in her initial Dispute Notice.
- The customer's claim for an apology and a prohibition from the repair company entering her home was for injunctive relief not applicable in this tribunal.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The customer was entitled to a refund of $1,057.85 due to the repair service provider's failure to install the correct replacement motherboard.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about a faulty refrigerator repair where the repair service provider installed the wrong motherboard, causing the refrigerator to malfunction.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided in favour of the customer because the repair service provider failed to install the correct replacement motherboard, which was a fundamental breach of the contract.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Civil Resolution Tribunal Act, s. 118 Civil Resolution Tribunal Act, s. 39 Civil Resolution Tribunal Act, s. 42 Civil Resolution Tribunal Act, s. 48(1) Civil Resolution Tribunal Act, s. 58.1
What was the argument that mattered most?
The customer argued that the repair service provider failed to install the correct replacement motherboard, which caused the refrigerator to malfunction, thus breaching the contract.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case, granting them a refund.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation may be entitled to a refund if the repair service provider fails to install the correct replacement part, resulting in a malfunction.
What evidence or documents mattered?
Security footage showing the installation of the wrong motherboard was crucial in proving the breach of contract.