@Smashfist
The ACL, as written, is not clear on the definition of minor or major faults so it’s up for interpretation. Obviously a manufacturer will have an interpretation that best suits their interest. In fact the manufacturer may even have produced reams of documents making their view sound official and legal, but it’s still just their view. It's not surprising, their self interested view would link componentry costs to the definition of major fault but it is simply wrong.
The reality is, where there is a disagreement on whether something is minor or major, only a judge can resolve that issue when he makes a determination. Such cases, almost always handled at a low level court, are case specific setting no precidents for other courts to follow. It’s only once an legal determination gets appealed, all the way to the top court, does it set a precident for other courts (and the general public) to follow. Only then do we all get a clearer interpret of a specific passage of legislation, in our case one that defines minor and major fault. Sadly that has not happened to my knowledge.
As it stands today, the law only mentions products, that is the whole purchased item, and discusses minor and major faults in that context. The law makes mention about how multiple repairs, or lengthy repair, can transform a minor fault into a major fault. These definitions are not as clear as i think they should be but it's rather important to note that there is no mention in ACL of product component replacements in relation to determining if an issue is a minor or major faults (from what i’ve read and it's been a while ago that i read it so memory may have faded a little).
What is without dispute, and clearly spelled out in ACL, is that it is the
buyers choice of what remedy he chooses when he suffers a major fault with the product he has purchased. The purchaser can choose, repair, replacement or full refund. And this is why many businesses try and claim everything is a minor fault to avoid providing a full refund if requested by the purchaser. In doing, so they are breaking the law.
It should be somewhat evident by now, especially with the recent rulings impacting Ford (fined $M's) and Holden (court enforcable undertaking to follow ACL) that industry will try all sorts of things to bamboozal people into believing their interpretation of the law is correct and obviously they'll manouver the situation so that everything is a minor faut and thus no refund can be provided.
Anyway, a failing steering system in a 2 ton vehicle that can risk life and limb, would be considered a major fault by Joe public regardless of whether a 20 cent connector pin was the underlying cause... And if such a case was taken to court because a dealer or manufacturer would not consider the issue a major fault under ACL, it’s likely a judge would take the common view and not reward a company that is so sh!tty to knowingly avoid a voluntary recall on such a critical issue that impacts safety... Such behaviour sounds a little Ford like and we know how that turned out for them in court.
Since Holden has made an undertaking not to misrepresent the ACL to ACCC, I wonder how ACCC, or a judge for that matter, would feel with Holden interpreting and documenting major fault based on a component replacement basis rather than on a product basis (you know, the thing that is sold and discussed in law). The only purpose of breaking down a product into components is to be able to classify most faults as minor and thus avoid the consumer choosing their remedy... IF they are doing such, they are really skating on thin ice....
And if a manufacturer knowingly provides documents to its agents that define minor and major faults that they know, or should have known are wrong in law, it's likely that they fall foul of the misleading and deceptive conduct or unconscionable conduct provisions within ACL itself... And as we know, Holden made a court enforcable undertaking not to missrepresent ACL, which is why i say if they are still pushing this view, they are skating on thin ice...
In any case, if you have read some passage within the ACL legislation that can be interpreted differently, and clarifies minor and major faults based on repairability, then please enlighten me. Likewise, if you have some legal ruling that clarifies the legal definition and thus takes a different slant than the view I have expressed, again enlighten me. But, if what you have read is some manufacturers take on the law, i’m not interested in their read and interpretation of something I can read and interpret myself.
How anyone could consider a faulty steering system to be a minor fault, because the cheap poorly designed non replaceable connector is the root cause is beyonmd reason. It is a serious safety issue that impacts more than just VF owners and needs to be handled via mandatory recall.
And in i think it was my last post on this thread, i documented a list of people on this forum that had steering issues with their VF's so i'm wondering if any have actually reported the issue to DOTARS and if not why not...
But at the end of the day, i have provided enough links for those that are interested to educate themselves and take a reasonable view of what’s written in law that benefits them. If people choose to take a manufacturers interpretation that works against individuals, so be it, they are free to think what they like...
As a last note, i don't remember ACL making any mention that someone returning a faulty product must provide all packaging that the product came with OR that the product must be in as new/undamaged condition. The seller requiring such before providing a refund is not following ACL. Just imaging, VF power steering assistance failed at an awkward time and the driver crashed his vehicle, Holden then states he has to repair the vehicle before he can get the refund afforded in law for a major fault. That's absurd.. all that needs determination is whether the fault was major or minor which would likely require a judge to make such, the rest (undamaged, packaging, etc) is irrelevant in law.
