Dunbrae Pty Ltd v Armani Restaurant Pty Ltd

Dunbrae Pty Ltd v Armani Restaurant Pty Ltd - [2023] NSWDC 25 - NSWDC 2022 case summary — Zoe

[3]

PLEADINGS AND OPENINGS

Pursuant to a Sales Contract made 10 May 2015, GFE sold and supplied to Restaurant, substantial commercial kitchen equipment for $217,800.00 (the "Sales Contract").
By Statement of Claim filed 16 January 2019 GFE sues Restaurant for payment of invoices for after sale servicing of the equipment pursuant to a contract, in these reasons identified as the Preventative Maintenance Service Contract made on 28 March 2017 or in the alternative 19 July 2017: SOC [3]. As the case was run, GFE relied on documentation, principally its quotation (revised) dated 19 April 2017 (Exhibit MD-3) and Restaurant's email dated 19 July 2017 (Exhibit MD-4) accepting option 1 from within that offer, as the documentation of the Preventative Maintenance Service Contract. GFE also relies on a 30 day Credit Account Application (Exhibit MD-2), completed by Restaurant and accepted by GFE on 28 March 2017. GFE claims $23,876.75 on account of unpaid invoices for service callout and preventative maintenance work performed on the commercial kitchen equipment it sold and supplied to Restaurant, such work having been performed in the period after 12 April 2017 and up to 16 August 2018 when payment of those invoices became overdue. In SOC [10] GFE describes its claim against Restaurant as "being a debt owed by the Defendant to the Plaintiff for breach of the Contract".
By its Amended Defence filed 18 September 2019, Restaurant pleads that pursuant to the Sales Contract, GFE agreed to a 5 year Parts and Labour warranty and that the whole of the jobs the subject of the invoices upon which GFE sues was covered by that warranty and Restaurant is not liable: AD [3] and [5]. Restaurant denies that the goods and services, the subject of the plaintiff's invoices, were provided pursuant to a Preventative Maintenance Services Contract: AD [4].
By First Cross Claim filed 24 September 2019, Restaurant pleads for relief in damages pursuant to Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Sch 2 - Australian Consumer Law, s 236 ("ACL") and in the alternative pursuant to ACL, s 243 that GFE recover the appliances and equipment and refund the contract price. Restaurant also sues on the statutory implied condition of contract that the appliances and equipment would be reasonably fit for purpose - Sale of Goods Act 1923 (NSW), s 19(1); the statutory implied condition that the commercial kitchen appliances and equipment having being bought by description would be of merchantable quality (Sales of Good Act, s 19(2)); and pursuant to ACL, s 54 that the commercial kitchen appliances and equipment were guaranteed to be of acceptable quality. Restaurant sues in breach of contract for damages on account of invoices it paid for servicing of the equipment which servicing fell within the Sales Contract warranty. In a final alternative cause of action, Restaurant sues pursuant to GFE's representation giving rise to a collateral warranty that the equipment was of a high quality suitable for use in Restaurant's restaurant including ready access to parts in the event of breakdown and on the basis of GFE's misrepresentations in contravention of ACL, s 18. In essence, the factual basis of Restaurant's defence and cross claim is that the equipment misfunctioned and broke down excessively.
The invoices upon which GFE sues, are presented in a schedule to paragraph [24] of an affidavit of GFE's Managing Director, Mr Dickenson made 14 October 2020 and are Exhibited at MD-6 to his affidavit. Exhibit MD-8, Mr Dickenson's email to lawyers for Restaurant on 31 August 2018, shows, as it was GFE's case during the hearing, that all of the claimed service charges making up the total of $23,876.75, were based on GFE's assumption that the 5 year warranty "was conditional upon the completion of 6 monthly preventative maintenance services, for which [Restaurant] was required to pay" (the "conditional warranty"). Whereas GFE relies on the warranty in the terms and of the exclusions set out in the Preventative Maintenance Service contract, Restaurant maintains that the 5 year warranty was in the terms and of the exclusions expressed in the Sales Contract made 10 May 2015.
During opening GFE acknowledged, that, on a first observation basis, there appeared to have been a very substantial occurrence of repairs and service needed including provision of substantial parts which would often indicate a component cause of misfunction of the equipment during the period of the invoices upon which it sued; but said that there were other reasons for those equipment malfunctions: T 16. 44 - 17. 2. GFE amended its prayer for relief number 1 ASOC, from a pleading of debt in the specific sum of $23,876.75 to include "or such other amount as the court deems fit" so as to proceed for a reduced sum in the event that I determine a portion of the invoices on which it sues to be not a debt payable by Restaurant: T 17. 30. GFE alternatively described its case as not a claim for damages for breach of contract (note above regarding ASOC [10]) but rather "…a liquidated debt arising from the contractual terms": T 17. 25. In a third description of its cause of action, during opening GFE referred to its "common money count suit on the invoices": T 23. 49.
The parties agreed during opening that the Sales Contract including all handwriting on the GFE printed documentation of quotation and the attached handwritten Annexure A (Exhibit MD-1). It was further agreed that these documents evidence the way in which the parties initially contracted for the sale and supply of the equipment from GFE to Restaurant: T 21. 41 - 22. 24. The parties believed on 10 May 2015 that they had reached a contract: T 22. 26 - 34.
In opening, GFE explained that it relied on the Thirty Day Commercial Credit Account Application made between the parties on 28 March 2017 as "…the first way in which we say, leaving aside the common money count suit on the invoices, there was in any event, an agreement that arose whereby the [Restaurant] agreed to pay invoices issued by [GFE]. So, as a matter of contract, we submit a liquidated debt arose, upon the issuing of invoices, pursuant to that term": T 23. 44 - 24. 2.
The Thirty Day Credit Account Application provided "[Restaurant] understand goods/services sold to [Restaurant] must be paid for within thirty (30) days from the month on which GFE issued each invoice.": Exhibit MD - 2.
At the outset I observe that by the Credit contract the parties agreed not more than a time for payment. It does not support an action for debt prosecuted on the basis of an invoice for which GFE was not otherwise entitled to payment.
In regard to the Preventative Maintenance Service Contract documents (Exhibit MD-3) including the Quotation dated 19 April 2017, in particular the page headed "Warranty exclusions as per the manufacturer" (Exhibit MD-3 page 25) and "Quotation conditions" at page 27, GFE opened that, the parties agreed terms to "Give[s] some clarity to the words used in the notation to the [Sales Contract], whereby the warranty was to be expanded": T 24. 50.
When asked, during opening, whether GFE was saying that by the Preventative Maintenance Service Contract (Exhibit MD-3) documents, the parties were entering into a new contract or a refinement of the Sales Contract by amendment, counsel for GFE responded: "well, we submit its difficult to work out what occurred here, but we would submit that its either a refinement of that 2015 agreement or it's a variation or separate agreement to it.": T 25. 35.
Following the morning adjournment, GFE re-stated its position in regard to the Preventative Maintenance Service Contract to be that it was "an independent agreement in its own right" and, with some apparent inconsistency to the Sales Contract. Plaintiff Counsel added that in regard to the Sales Contract warranty: "We don't accept that there was a concluded agreement in the terms due to uncertainty really": T 27. 11 - 35. I understood GFE to be saying that whereas on 10 May 2015 the parties agreed a Sales Contract for the supply of appliances and equipment for a price, that was all they agreed, and that the balance, of the terms, being provisions as to warranty, were uncertain and unenforceable: T 27. 35 (see also GFE closing T 226. 6 - 27).
GFE says that on 19 July 2017 the parties made the Preventative Maintenance Service Contract when Restaurant accepted the terms of GFE's quotation dated 19 April 2017 by emailing its selection for acceptance of the option 1 scope of preventative maintenance service work: Exhibit MD-4; T 30. 10 - 20.
It was at this point, that Restaurant amended its defence by insertion of AD 3(f)(a) to plead that on 19 July 2017 Restaurant accepted an offer from GFE to provide preventative maintenance services solely: T 36. 21 - 34 (leave to amend unopposed and granted: T 38. 15).
Importantly, for determination of the issues in the case, Restaurant maintained that the servicing and repair of defects in the equipment fell within the Sales Contract 5 year warranty: AD [3(e)(f)]; T 36. 5 - 35; T 37. 5 - 16. In short, Restaurant's position was to concede that it agreed to incur the cost of preventative maintenance services but not of services for repair and rectification of misfunction of the equipment which would otherwise fall within the terms of the Sales Contract warranty.
In response to the cross claim, GFE pointed to the absence of expert opinion evidence in Restaurant's case and that the Court would not, in the absence of such evidence, conclude that the equipment was not fit for purpose, not of acceptable quality or was defective. Further, that the goods were sold by reference to the Angelo Po trade name and in any event were inspected by Restaurant such that the Sale of Goods Act, s 19 would not apply. Finally, that Restaurant does not put forward any evidence of any loss flowing from any such breach: T 41. 10. GFE pointed to the absence of evidence in Restaurant's case, of any employee of the restaurant who worked with or used the equipment to establish how it was actually used and why it was not suitable.
During closing submissions the parties contested who bore the onus of proof. The first step in approaching the question of onus is to determine the construction of the Sales Contract and the Preventative Maintenance Service Contract and what the terms of warranty were. Both parties referred to Wallaby Grip Limited v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited & another (2010) 240 CLR 444; [2010] HCA 9.
Finally, that Restaurant conceded that it did not attempt to sell the equipment and thereby mitigate loss which its claims: T 41. 35.

[4]

FACTS - EVIDENCE

Mr Krich is the sole director of Restaurant. Mr Marabani was the manager of Restaurant. In 2014, in the course of renovation and expansion of the restaurant, Restaurant engaged with GFE toward fit out of the commercial kitchen for servicing a seating capacity of 500 diners. Meetings occurred between Mr Robertson, then NSW Sales Manager of the relevant division of GFE and Messrs Krich and Marabani for Restaurant. Chef Maher Asaad also participated on behalf of Restaurant. Mr Robertson recommended Angelo Po brand commercial kitchen appliances. He was well familiar with those appliances having been employed as Managing Director of the Australian division of Angelo Po Kitchen Appliances for 8 years prior to his employment with GFE. During the course of approximately 15 meetings over several months, mainly at the Restaurant but once at GFEs showroom, Restaurant did consider other brands of kitchen equipment but ultimately settled mainly on the Angelo Po Brand; affidavit of Krich 12 November 2021 paragraphs [7] - [8]; equipment list in Sales Contract MD - 1, page 12 - 14.
The unchallenged evidence of Mr Krich (at paragraph [7] of his affidavit) is that during those fifteen or so meetings, he took the advice of Mr Robertson and was influenced by Mr Robertson's recommendations as to the equipment to be chosen for the restaurant's new kitchen. The unchallenged evidence of Mr Krich (paragraph [8] of his affidavit) is that he on one occasion attended GFE's showroom "to inspect the equipment they had recommended for my new kitchen". The evidence is no more precise than that. The inspection occurred at some time between late 2014 and May 2015. The Angelo Po equipment arrived in around September 2015 and was commissioned between December 2015 and February 2016. The evidence does not identify whether the type of every appliance and piece of equipment ultimately purchased was inspected or whether or not the appliance or equipment inspected was of identical model and specification as the appliance or equipment ultimately supplied.
At a meeting in late 2014, in response to Mr Marabani's enquiry of the availability of spare parts, Mr Robertson stated, in effect; "…We have a very large warehouse in Melbourne that holds all spare parts. Millions of dollars worth of equipment. Everything we need is available there. The waiting time is very short from Melbourne to Sydney."
When cross examined about the choice of Angelo Po products and the kitchen installation, Mr Marabani was unshaken in his denial that Chef Maher made the choice. He said that Chef Maher, who had previous experience with Angelo Po equipment, was content with the selection and purchase of those products but he did not influence the selection: T 191.
Mr Marabani confirmed that GFE did not perform the plumbing work and installation and that Restaurant retained builders to perform work between May 2015 (the month the Sales Contract was made) and the delivery of the equipment including the installation of heating, ventilation, air conditioning and the exhaust hood in the kitchen: T 192. 30 - 41. In late 2016 GFE provided training to Restaurant staff in the use of the equipment including from Mr Noth of Angelo Po as to how to properly load the dishwasher (earlier, in about May 2016) after Restaurant experienced difficulties with it. Mr Marabani maintained that GFE was delayed in the delivery of cup racks but denied that that was because Mr Marabani was slow in providing the specifications for the racks: T 193.
On 10 May 2015, at a meeting at the restaurant, attended by Mr Robertson, Mr Krich and Mr Marabani, agreement was reached between the parties for the sale and supply of kitchen equipment from GFE to Restaurant. At the meeting, the parties agreed to a 5 year parts and labour warranty on Angelo Po appliances: see Robertson affidavit at [35]. The agreement was recorded in an undated document which listed the appliances and bore handwritten amendments and an annexure page headed "ANNEXURE A". At the bottom of the list of equipment which was the subject of the sale and to which the parties made handwritten correction, handwritten words "SEE ATTACHED "ANNEXURE A"" and "5 YEAR PARTS & LABOUR WARRANTY ON ANGELO PO PRODUCTS" were inserted with other handwritten amendments. One handwritten insert was a notation that Robot Coope brand equipment was to be confirmed for 5 year warranty and another that installation was to be confirmed: Sales Contract MD - 1.
The whole of the handwritten marked amendments to the printed text and numbers on the pages of Exhibit MD-1 (see pages 12 - 14) were made by GFE's Mr Robertson and record the agreed changes made at the meeting: Exhibit 2; defendant Closing Submission T 239. 15 - 20 and no counter argument put by plaintiff.
Restaurant promptly confirmed its acceptance of the contract that same day by email (MD - 1, page 16; OM - 1, pages 2 and 3) and paid a $100,000 deposit by direct deposit into GFE's account (MD - 1, page 18).
Shortly before supply of the first of the equipment, Mr Robertson for GFE, on 1 September 2015, emailed Mr Krich for Restaurant a list of equipment sold and to be supplied. Mr Robertson's email is consistent with the terms of the Sales Contract made on 10 May 2015. It listed the equipment sold and noted the deposit paid on 10 May 2015. Mr Robertson requested the balance payment prior to the impending delivery: OM - 2, page 12. The amount due was $117,800. Mr Robertson's email made no mention of an agreement for preventative maintenance service of the equipment in connection with the Sales Contract.
GFE points to the Sales Contract warranty terms and conditions, where they appear without handwritten amendment, in the printed GFE sale contract documentation: see MD - 1, page 15. GFE focused on the provision for "36 Months" parts and labour warranty which there appears. GFE says that the handwritten terms for 5 year parts and labour warranty in the above quoted handwritten entries at MD - 1, page 14 and the words of Annexure A "Warranty is for 5 years in the terms and conditions in the contract - To be expanded for clarity, but within the same parameters as the contract." are inconsistent with the printed terms of warranty.
Those unamended written terms at MD - 1, page 15 provide specifically for 36 months parts and labour warranty covering the FX101E3 Ovens which are an Angelo Po product included in the list of equipment. Those unamended written terms of warranty also provide that the Robot Coope products and Jackstack Products are covered by a 12 month parts and labour warranty
Accordingly, whereas GFE says the contract of warranty was void for uncertainty because of the disparity between the unamended printed term of 3 years warranty and the handwritten terms expressing 5 year warranty; Restaurant says that the handwritten amendments prevail such that, in accordance with Annexure A, the terms and conditions of the contract were preserved save that the term of the warranty was expanded to 5 years.
Adjusting the Sales Contract printed contract terms to provide for a warranty of 5 years in accordance with the above quoted wording from Annexure A would result in wording as follows: ([5 year] substituted for "36 Months")

"A [5 year] Parts & [5 year] Labour Warranty Applies which is valid for Warranty Work Done during Trades Business Hours of 8:30 am to 4:30 pm
A [5 year] Parts & [5 year] Labour Warranty Applies to FX101E3 Ovens
Robot Coope Products, Jackstack Products are covered by 12 Months Parts & Labour Warranty
After Hours Warranty Work will be done on a normal hours rate and the After Hours Labour and Call out Cost's Difference must be paid for by the customer
Parts not covered under Warranty are Generally Consumable items Light Globes, Door Seals, Thermocouples and misuse by customer
If any consumable item is found to be faulty upon commissioning it will be replaced under Warranty at no charge to the customer"

By early December 2015, kitchen equipment was being installed and in mid-December 2015 GFE, by its technician, commissioned equipment: Marabani affidavit paragraphs [23] - [25]. The restaurant commenced operating with the new dishwasher in around January 2016 and the new cooking line in around February 2016: Marabani affidavit paragraph [26].
Virtually from the time of installation, Mr Marabani made requests of GFE for service to correct operational issues with the equipment.
GFE's case is as principally evidenced in the affidavit of its Managing Director, Mr Dickinson (affidavits 14 October 2020 and 14 July 2021 and oral evidence). It was his understanding (first affidavit, paragraph 10, limited to evidence of personal belief-s 136) that "as part of the sales agreement between Armani and Dunbrae, it was agreed that Dunbrae would provide a limited 5 years extended warranty on the Angelo Po products conditional on Dunbrae conducting preventative maintenance bi-annually at Armani's costs". Mr Dickenson was not present at the making of the Sales Contract. Mr Robertson was GFEs representative present at the making of the contract. The terms of Preventative Maintenance Service Contract for preventative maintenance bi-annually, being the contract upon which GFE sues for recovery of service and maintenance costs, is contained in its written offer documentation dated between 30 March 2017 (revised 19 April 2017), approximately two years after the sale contract and one and a half years after the equipment was commissioned. GFE relies on Restaurant's email timed 12:48 pm on 19 July 2017 (MD - 4) as proof of acceptance. Restaurant denies acceptance of the terms of contract in the offer and say only specific preventative maintenance work was accepted.
Mr Robertson deposed at paragraphs [31] and [33 - 35] of his affidavit, not that there was a recorded term of the Sales Contract for preventative maintenance servicing by GFE; but rather, during early negotiations preceding the making of the Sales Contract and in response to Mr Krichs' requests for a 5 year warranty, he said to Mr Krich words to the effect of "we will not agree to a 5 year warranty unless a percentage is applied on top of the equipment price to cover each appliance. We will also require a preventative maintenance service agreement with GFE's Service Division". There is no higher point in the evidence in GFE's case for support of the proposition that it was a term and condition of the Sales Contract that Restaurant would agree a preventative maintenance service agreement with GFE or that there was then such an ancillary agreement.
Mr Robertson's evidence that it was agreed that the 5 year parts and labour warranty was to operate in parallel with a preventative maintenance service agreement, to be provided by GFE's Service Manager after the sale was finalised; was limited as to evidence of his state of mind only pursuant to Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 136.
That no term of the Sales Contract provided for a preventative maintenance service agreement is not an ambiguity of the language of the Sales Contract. The surrounding circumstances of things said in early negotiations, are not admissible to contradict the language of the Sales Contract, in the way GFE proposes. As was said by Mason J in Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (1982) 149 CLR 337; [1982] HCA 24 of pre-contractual negotiations: "…so far as they consist of statements and actions of the parties which are reflective of their actual intentions and expectations they are not receivable. The point is that such statements and actions reveal the terms of the contract which the parties intended or hoped to make. They are super seeded by and merged in the contract itself. The object of the parole evidence rule is to exclude them…."; see also Ye v Chen [2022] NSWCA 219 at [41] per Macfarlan JA at [40] (Meagher and Mitchelmore JJA agreeing). I repeat, in fact a preventative maintenance service contract was not proposed by GFE until 19 April 2017.

The service request is what was recorded as the customer having asked for;
The work performed is the technicians record of what was done;
The job note is an internally recorded entry for example that a call was received at the call centre; and
The record should be reflective of all jobs undertaken.

Mr Dickenson's evidence went to explaining entries such as "this job is warranty" (Exhibit 1/MFI 5 page 7) as being internally entered either by staff of GFE or on request from the customer. Where GFE's manager determined work to fall within warranty a zero value for an invoice would be entered. Mr Dickinson explained the background fact that where parts required replacement and were covered under the Angelo Po manufacturer's warranty, GFE would claim the parts under that warranty but itself pay for the labour. Because the Angelo Po manufacturer's warranty was for 2 years, GFE bore the risk of the 5 year warranty: T 72. 39 - 46.
Mr Hill, during cross examination, explained that he did not have personal knowledge of Restaurant's treatment of the equipment, his role being a managerial one. He commenced with GFE in July 2017. Until March 2018 he performed the role of NSW Service Manager, in which he was responsible for overseeing GFE's service divisions for NSW, Australia and the Philippines. From March 2018 to March 2020 he acted as NSW/Australian Capital Territory State Manager for a division of GFE and from July 2019 as National Operations Manager for that division. The common evidence of Mr Hill and Mr Marabani is that the first preventative maintenance and service work occurred on 1 November 2017 and further preventative maintenance work was performed on 15 November 2017. Mr Marabani was of the view that the preventative maintenance service was not completed, which view he maintained during cross examination. Restaurant repeatedly directed what it considered to be performance issues concerning the equipment to management including Mr Hill, rather than use the regular GFE breakdown service and Mr Hill personally attended the restaurant at least six times between late 2017 and mid-2018.
Exhibit SH-6 to his affidavit was compiled by Mr Hill from his review of the TSM as at the 22nd of August 2018. After approximately two and a half years, GFE had invoiced 104 jobs, of which Mr Hill identified 55 as falling under the terms of "the Conditional Warranty", 31 jobs which "were originally charged as falling outside of the Conditional Warranty" and 18 jobs which had been invoiced at a zero value: Hill affidavit paragraph [24]. Mr Hill explained that SH-6 included his assessment of whether the job fell within a warranty, or a credit job and that he did so in association with dealing with his technicians: T 90. 30 - 36. It was his personal determination to allocate "a zero invoice/chargeable" where he formed the view that the job fell outside the warranty, but GFE was willing to give up a charge in order to try to achieve a settlement payment and Mr Hill referred to his meeting with the general manager of Restaurant (T 90. 45 - 50) which was a reference to the meeting between Mr Robertson and Mr Hill of GFE with Mr Krich and Marabani of Restaurant on 10 January 2018.
Mr Hill agreed that SH-6 shows that of the 55 repairs and service under warranty in that period of about two and a half years:

15 involved the deep fryer;
11 involved the dishwasher;
9 involved the combi oven; and
6 involved the pasta boiler.

When challenged that 55 warranty repairs in the space of 30 months was "certainly unusually high" for Angelo Po equipment, Mr Hill agreed but added it depended how the appliances and equipment were looked after and maintained and observed that GFE did not provide maintenance until after the preventative maintenance and service agreement in mid-2017: 91. 44 - 92. 22.
Mr Robertson also spoke of the importance of preventative maintenance because of wear and tear in a high use kitchen environment, from first delivery of the new equipment. His evidence was (T 105. 8 - 26; T 106. 1 - 7): Q. And to your knowledge, were the products purchased by Armani newly manufactured? A. Yes. Q. By any measure, for brand new premium kitchen equipment, it'd be very unusual for that equipment to require 20 services in its first year of use. Wouldn't it? A. Depends on how it's maintained. Q. Sir, are you saying that brand new equipment on the day it arrives need to be maintained on the day that it is first installed? A. Well, over that period of time, you'd expect some preventative maintenance to have been done because it's a wear and tear item, it's in high use, and it does need to be serviced in a preventative maintenance type of way, just like a - a car does when you buy it. Q. But if I had purchased a car, I don't need to put it into maintenance the day I purchased it. Do I? A. Not the day you purchased. No. …… Q. My question was, in its first year of use, is it your evidence that preventative maintenance is necessary from the moment a kitchen item of this nature are purchased? A. After a period of time. Yes. Q. And what period of time? A. The first three months.
On 31 October 2017 Mr Marabani emailed GFE expressing Restaurant's frustration with the performance of the appliances and equipment: Exhibit MO-61. He required the combi ovens to be removed and replaced with a new oven because "the current ovens are not operating properly stopping in service time with error codes, leaking chemical and water. Oil reaching into the motor, door seals and many other issues, we have paid for an oven to work not for it to stop In the middle of service on the busiest nights. We have been promised many times we been fixed even in the latest meeting we were promised that it will be done and nothing is finished yet." He listed the many problems needing urgent attention as: 1. "Combi ovens and the water and chemicals that constantly leaking 2. Combi error codes message 3. Combi drip dry [tray] melted 4. Combi door seals 5. Combi oven door mechanism 6. Deep fryer automatic system not working on going for over three months not completed yet 7. Deep fryers leaking oil 8. Bamare (sic) not turning on or working 9. Door handles on many types of equipment need to be changed 10. Vacuum packaging wire needs replacement 11. Dishwasher spinning arm hooks need to be fixed"
Almost immediately, on 31 October 2017, Mr Hill of GFE replied by emails Exhibited OM-62 and OM-63 giving GFE's update for outstanding parts and a schedule of status of jobs logged in the TSM over the prior 3 months. I am not required to analyse these trade technical communications other than to consider the parties arguments scheduled in Exhibit B and MFI 10. In the absence of expert opinion evidence, I would be unable to adequately do so.

[5]

PRESENTATION OF THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE CASE

At several points during the hearing I raised with the parties my concern that examination of the Exhibit 1, TSM worker created record of work performed was likely to involve me in attempting to understand tradespersons technical descriptions of tasks, parts and components of equipment and that I would have difficulty, in the absence of expert opinion evidence, assessing whether cost for the work fell under warranty or not. The parties maintained their positions not to rely on expert opinion evidence. Specifically, I raised with the parties that methods of cleaning of a restaurant and considerations such as whether or not a hose should be used and where, was not within my worldly experience but would be appropriately addressed by expert opinion evidence. Similarly, that the capacity of appliances such as dishwashers and ovens to continue to operate in the work load environment of a 500 seat restaurant was beyond my worldly experience and expertise. I observed that 500 seat capacity, is within my lay knowledge of Sydney, very large for a restaurant and that there was no evidence before me of the numbers of patrons served in order for me to appreciate the work load on the equipment. I disclosed to the parties that in excess of 40 years ago I had worked, in bars, using dishwashers and refrigerators, and that these were quite wet areas (see T 41. 10 - 35; 108. 14 - 109. 35; 115. 10 - 118 - 28; 116. 25 - 27; 117. 40 - 118. 04; 120. 4 - 127. 2; 136. 22 - 138. 5; 176. 20).
As I have said, in closing submissions, the parties presented their arguments regarding the Exhibit 1 evidence of works performed by tradesman in schedules. Exhibit B is the Schedule of Repair Works including those for which GFE claims payment and MFI 10 is the Schedule of Repair Invoices for which recovery of payment is claimed by Restaurant in its Cross-claim. Exhibit B and MFI 10, in columns, include GFE's position and Restaurant's position as to whether or not the work fell within warranty.
Later in these reasons, when I come to detailed consideration of Exhibit B, it will be seen that I have been required by the parties to do so in the absence of expert evidence explaining what the nature of parts were and the nature of the labour service tasks performed were. Particularly, in regard to my consideration of the invoices upon which Restaurant relies virtually solely upon for evidence of its submissions in MF1 10, it will be apparent that the evidence often has not identified not only the nature of parts and of labour performed, to my confident understanding but also to identify what the fault, cause or defect rectified was and what connection the work identified in the invoice had with the warranty.
Whilst, Restaurant's burden of proving that the work the subject of the claim fell within warranty is only to satisfy me of a prima facie presumption of that fact; nevertheless, I bear in mind as was said in Commonwealth v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd (1991) 174 CLR 64 at page 83 in relation to proof of contractual damages that (per Mason CJ) "mere difficulty in estimating damages does not relieve a court from the responsibility of estimating them as best it can", but as also said at pages 124 - 125 (per Deane), that does not mean the Court should seek to guess what the damages might be because the plaintiff has failed to take reasonable steps to prove the damages it has suffered. Similarly, in relation to invoiced service work, GFE's onus of proof at the standard of balance of probabilities, that the work fell outside of warranty cover, including as falling within exclusions from warranty is not assisted by expert opinion evidence.

[6]

EVIDENCE OF MISUSE DEPOSED TO BY GFE TECHNICIANS

Mr Charles Sammut, a First-Class Metal worker/Fitter, employed by GFE for 25 years assessing, diagnosing and repairing commercial kitchen equipment, made his affidavit on 14 October 2020. He was not cross examined. He attended the restaurant only twice. That was during mid-2018. He worked on the dishwasher. The TSM system identified the dates of those attendances as 22 May 2018 and 29 June 2018 and recorded that he found a guide bar broken off at the base and a guide bar out of shape, totally jammed up. He removed debris, found part of the metal ripped out and he welded it back in place. In his affidavit at [10] he recalled that the debris included large amounts of broken glass, crockery and plastics inside the dishwasher line. Weight of his opinion that "this type of equipment rarely has any debris of this type inside", can logically be known only with evidence of whether or not breakages had occurred soon before his attendance and whether or not the dishwasher had been cleaned before his attendance. There was no such evidence. Worldly experience, in my opinion, weights against the proposition that instances of breakage of glass and crockery in commercial kitchen dishwashers is not normal. I consider evaluation of relevance of broken guide bars to be beyond my expertise. I am unable to understand the reach of Mr Sammut's evidence as indicating a causal connection of misuse to the debris or of the contribution of the debris to any failure of the dishwasher. At [11] he deposed that of the metal breakages he worked on, "he had never seen broken on a dishwasher before". He did not in his affidavit depose to how many other Angelo Po dishwashers, if any, he had worked on. He did not depose to more about the breakages, except for his having not seen it before. I consider it beyond my expertise to make causal connections for breakages and guide bar distortion which I find missing from his affidavit evidence.
Mr Brett Bagnall, deposed by affidavit made 14 October 2020 that between August 2016 and December 2016 he was Acting Branch Service Manager of GFE in Sydney, during which period he received calls from GFE's technicians on several occasions and from "clients" to assist with managing the ongoing relationship between Restaurant and GFE. He spoke to Mr Marabani on several occasions. His affidavit does not add weight or substance to GFE's allegations of misuse.
Mr Brenton Pickering, whose affidavit was made 4 October 2020, was National Product, Technical Support and Training Manager for GFE with a background of having worked as a field service technician, Technical Manager Food Equipment and acted as the senior contact and expert on all technical matters relating to diagnosis and repair of failures on commercial kitchen equipment supplied or supported by GFE. He was also a qualified electrician. Between 2015 and mid-2019 he was frequently called by GFE's technicians to assist them in troubleshooting, diagnosing and correcting a range of failures with the commercial kitchen equipment at the restaurant. He was advised by others that the failure rates experienced by Restaurant were "abnormally high". On 15 February 2017 he attended the restaurant with Mr Noth, the technical representative for Angelo Po products, based in Modena, Italy. Over one and one half hours he and Mr Noth discussed with Mr Marabani the high failure rate of the door seals and other components of the Angelo Po equipment and he noticed that the combi ovens were on standby the entire duration of the visit at almost the highest temperature, whilst not being used. Mr Pickering was not cross examined.
Nothing in his affidavit, to my understanding, indicates his observation or awareness of misuse of the equipment by Restaurant. That the failure rate of the equipment was abnormally high, is common ground but it is the cause of the failures which is at issue. His evidence does not explain how the combi ovens should have been operated during standby on that single attendance. There is no evidence, for instance, of the kitchen's expected use of these ovens on that day.
By affidavit also made 14 October 2020, Mr Bradford Sewell, a Field Service Technician employed by GFE deposed that he attended the restaurant approximately 50 times between April 2016 and July 2018 to assess and repair various pieces of kitchen equipment. In about July or August 2018 he entered in the TSM system, in relation to carrying out repairs to a dishwasher: "issue caused by moisture in motor from cleaning and/or condensate from exhaust hood above equipment". He observed that the drying fan motor showed signs of rust and "continually tripped". He considered, based on his experience, that signs of rust were consistent with excessive moisture and he "became aware that the hood was not externally vented, and was only vented into the ceiling cavity." His observation was that the equipment was "often noticeably dirty during food service" and water droplets and water pooled inside various pieces of equipment where water should not be present, such as in the deep fryer and oven. On several occasions he saw restaurant staff hosing the area which contained the dishwasher. On another occasion he found rusted metal door hinges on a gas oven and observed that the insulation inside the door assembly was wet with clear signs of water ingress. On one occasion he found that the computer board on a deep fryer had failed, which he considered to be a very rare failure. As already observed, he commented that he had not observed such a high failure rate or damage to Angelo Po products during his 10 years servicing customers, as he did at the restaurant.
I consider it beyond my expertise to evaluate Mr Sewell's observations of moisture in equipment and of cleaning. I note that the dishwasher, in proximity of which he observed hosing, was 10 meters from cooking equipment. There is no evidence upon which I would conclude that it was misuse to use a hose during the course of cleaning. His observation of kitchen equipment being dirty was made during food service, not after cleaning following operation. He did not identify the cause to water droplets and water pooling in "various pieces of equipment where water should not be present" and therefore there is not a suggestion of misuse identifiable by me. Likewise for his rusted gas oven hinges and wetness from water ingress in the insulation and the deep fryer computer board observations.
On the assumption that water can be used for cleaning in normal commercial kitchen operations, Mr Sewell's evidence does not permit me to identify whether or not the equipment failed due to inadequate design or manufacture or from such cleaning. His evidence does not satisfy me, when considered with all the evidence that the cleaning employed was misuse.
In his affidavit, Mr Hill refers to disputing with Mr Marabani, whether cooktops getting blocked was an equipment issue or a cleanliness issue. There is sparse to nil evidence of the cleaning methods employed by the Restaurant in the evidence. He referred also to Mr Sewell having expressed to him his opinion that condensation from the exhaust hood from the dishwasher "may be causing the issues" reported by Restaurant and of his (Mr Hill's) understanding that Restaurant had engaged its own contractors to design, engineer, supply and install the exhaust system including the exhaust hood. That knowledge arrived from an earlier discussion he had had with Mr Robertson. Mr Hills evidence in these regards was admitted with the limitation of belief based on conversations with Mr Sewell and Mr Robertson but not evidence of specialised knowledge or expert opinion of Mr Sewell and, not evidence of truth of the facts of design, engineering, supply and installation of the exhaust system.
There is no evidence before me of Mr Sewell's specialist knowledge in the design or construction of exhaust systems through the building from the exhaust hood. Indeed, Mr Hill's affidavit frankly stated that Mr Marabani disagreed that the exhaust from the hood ventilation above the dishwasher was inadequate to draw moisture and/or steam from the area and was a cause of the issues. Frankly, it is in my opinion, a matter of specialist knowledge as to whether or not drips from the exhaust hood appliance caused any of those problems and I would assume that any expert inspection would require examination and assessment of the exhaust ducting beyond the exhaust hood appliance, visible to Mr Sewell.
In addition to the parties closing submissions in the form of schedules based on the TSM, Exhibit A contains GFE's invoices for repairs it claims to be outside of warranty. Invoices upon which Restaurant sues in its cross-claim are continued in OM - 101. In addition, the Restaurant tendered: 1. Exhibits 3 and 4 which include a collection of emails on 31 October 2017, internal to GFE personnel including Messrs Sewell, O'Reilly, Pickering and Dickenson attaching referred to communications with Ms Triticiano of Angelo Po, Italy. The emails confirm that there had been multiple door seal failures on the Angelo Po combi ovens and as commented by Mr O'Reilly, "…there have been a significant number of seals failing on these ovens across Coles etc so it doesn't appear to be an isolated incident." GFE's sales department was not prepared to assist Restaurant which, Mr O'Reilly found to be "completely unintelligent". He informed Mr Pickering by email at 9:05 am on 31 October 2016 "I guess what I'm really asking is how hard do you want me to go on challenging the customer on warranty?". Later that morning, Mr O'Reilly emailed Ms Triticiano a photograph "as proof of a new door seal appearing to warp with the heat only 3 x days after being installed as new." Mr Pickering informed Mr O'Reilly and Ms Triticiano early that afternoon that Anglo Po had released "all new seals" which he asked be ordered for Restaurant. His email described differences between the old and the new door seal parts including different part numbers and that the new seals were a "new design". 2. Exhibit 5 includes emails between Mr Noth, Mr Robertson and Mr Pickering. Mr Noth expressed his "horror" on finding, when he inspected the restaurant with Mr Goldberg, cracked knobs on appliances which would be replaced under warranty. He referred to there being a problem with the "hood" which assumedly is the exhaust hood above the dishwasher. 3. Exhibit 6 is email correspondence between Messrs Pickering, Sewell and O'Reilly of November 2016 concerning a dishwasher motor which had already been replaced under warranty, with a motor of local origin, because the Angelo Po equipment had been delivered with an electric motor suitable for European voltage but not for Australian voltage and a replacement "special version of the motor" was to be organised. The email regarding the inspection of 1 November also referred to the dishwasher conveyer stalling, the drive clutch slipping and that the manual/automatic setting could not be adjusted for fear of breaking the unit with no spare on hand. Angelo Po agreed to replace the dishwasher motor with the "special version" motor suitable for Australia, under warranty.

[7]

DISCERNMENT - SALES CONTRACT (AND PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE SERVICE CONTRACT)

GFE's action for recovery of payment of its invoices (MD - 6) the subject of its detailed submissions in relation to the work billed (Exhibit B) is fundamentally premised on there being no legally enforceable contractual warranty between GFE and Restaurant contained in the terms of the Sales Contract made 10 May 2015. GFE's action is premised on the basis that the only contractual warranty was in the terms of the Preventative Maintenance and Service Contract made 19 July 2017. Throughout GFE's responses in MFI 10 to Restaurant's cross claim for payment of invoices (OM - 101) for recovery of cost of work under warranty, GFE relied on only that Preventative Maintenance Services Contract warranty. Restaurant's case is essentially based on the parties having validly made the Sales Contract warranty.
It is convenient to first deal with GFE's submissions challenging the legal effect of the 10 May 2015 Sales Contract warranty.
GFE's starting point (T 220. 40) is by reference to Mr Robertson in the early stages of negotiation of the Sales Contract having responded to Mr Krich's request for a 5 year warranty, having stated that GFE would not agree unless a percentage was added on top of the price of each appliance and Restaurant enter into a preventative maintenance service agreement with GFE's service division. I have already determined that evidence, as a matter of principle, to be of no assistance in determination of the construction of the Sales Contract. I make the following further observations:

The essential condition of the value of the percentage on top of the otherwise price was never discussed.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Restaurant agreed to conditions of contract of that nature.
The stark observation is that Mr Robertson, when present on 10 May 2015 participated in the making of the Sales Contract and indeed made hand written amendments to the GFE Standard Terms which recorded the parties' agreement for a 5 year parts and labour warranty.
In the Sales Contract neither GFE's printed document wording, nor the hand written amendments agreed between the parties made mention of the warranty being conditional upon the parties agreeing a preventative maintenance service agreement, or whatsoever of preventative maintenance.
Even if Mr Robertson's evidence of his having made that statement to Mr Krich during early negotiations was admissible evidence in some way on the question of construction of the contract, such as if it were admissible evidence of context and background knowledge of each of the parties; there is still no evidence of the parties having agreed the essential term of percentage price mark up or of the terms of the contract for preventative maintenance service - indeed, Mr Robertson's handwriting on the contract documentation (MD - 1, page 14) shows that prices proposed by GFE in its printed documentation were agreed to be marked down.
GFE's quotation dated 19 April 2017 bearing terms proposed by it for a Preventative Maintenance Service Contract is evidence illustrating the detailed content of a contract of that nature, and the evidence of the making of the Sales Contract including that which was said by Mr Robertson in early negotiations shows that the parties never development negotiation of a contract of that detail prior to the making of the Sales Contract.

It follows from the above, that GFE's submission (T 220. 45) that the preventative maintenance service agreement quotation of 19 April 2017 "is consistent with" Mr Robertson's early negotiations stages statement to Mr Krich, must be rejected. In any event, the submission is inaccurate as to fact. The preventative maintenance service quotation provided for costs of service at specified rates and not as a percentage mark up on top of the price of each piece of equipment sold.
I return to GFE's submission that there is an internal inconsistency amongst the express terms of the Sales Contract warranty. The Annexure A (MD - 1, page 17) handwritten amendment "Warranty is for 5 years in the terms and conditions of the contract - To be expanded for clarity, but within the same parameters as the contract", referred only to expansion of the term for duration of the warranty from "36 Months" (MD - 1, page 15), and only to warranty of Angelo Po products. The handwritten insertion "ATTACHED ANNEXURE A" beside "5 YEAR PARTS & LABOUR WARRANTY ON ANGELO PO PRODUCTS" (MD - 1, page 14) immediately following the adjusted list and pricing for equipment and preceding the handwritten revisions which differentiate provisions warranty about the products including Robot Coope brand, require this construction of that Annexure A wording. Earlier I set out as the printed terms of warranty appear after application of that correction to five year warranty.
In further response to GFE's submission, I observe that if an agreement in the terms of its 19 April 2017 preventative maintenance and service quotation had been in the minds of the parties at the time of making the Sales Contract, it would be an absurd proposition that Mr Robertson would have delivered the printed GFE documentation to the meeting and then participated in the amendment of it by handwriting in order to reach agreement on 10 May 2015 in the absence of him insisting on a provision for preventative maintenance. Indeed, his active participation in the making of the contract is unavoidable evidence to the contrary.
On 10 May 2015, the parties expressed the terms of their agreement with the focus and care of making those handwritten amendments and should be found to have intended to incorporate the whole agreement in those terms. In my opinion GFE puts an entirely unconvincing submission that the words "to be expanded" in Annexure A of the Sales Contract documentation should be construed to mean that they were making reference for future inclusion of terms inconsistent with their agreement. Terms that the 5 year the warranty was conditional upon entering into a preventative maintenance service contract would be so inconsistent.
The above referred to evidence of negotiations and of the parties sitting down together to make the documented contract is context further evidencing their having purposefully made the handwritten amendments to make the 5 year warranty labour and products agreement. GFE, by Mr Robertson's actions at the making of the contract on 10 May 2015 achieved the sale by acceding to Restaurant's demand for a 5 year warranty which Restaurant had repeatedly advanced: Fitzgerald v Masters (1956) 95 CLR 420; [1956] HCA 53 per Dickson CJ and Fullager J at [4].

"This agreement includes: Warranty start 30/09/2015 - Warranty expires 30/09/2020
7 x chargeable PM services to be completed during normal hours over 2 x consecutive mornings in May/June to coincide with Ramadan and December.
Fixed price servicing to be "fixed" until December 2018 and reviewed annually." are to be construed to mean that the quotation expressed a warranty commencement date on 30 September 2015, that being the date of commencement of the Sales Contract on delivery of the equipment (T 222).

I make the following further observations against acceptance of GFE's submission:

On the evidence, whilst some of the equipment arrived in Australia in about September 2015, it was not commissioned by GFE at the restaurant until much later, starting from December 2015 and continuing through to February 2016 and therefore a start date of 30 September 2015 would be a nonsense;
The submission, in my opinion, is not consistent with the wording of the quotation: ○ The words "this agreement" describes it as a new and separate agreement, not a variation of or addendum to the Sales Contract; ○ The word "includes" has work to do. It is an express recognition of the existence of the Sales Contract warranty made 2 years before; ○ The preamble words in the first paragraph which precede the expression of the terms of contract with the words "this agreement includes: …", (wrongly) historically reference only GFE's complaint that the parties at the time of the making of the Sales Contract had intended provision for bi-annual servicing; but in doing so, admit that the making of the Sales Contract 2 years before was the contextual factual genesis of this quoted for transaction and that such provision had not been expressed in contractual form (commercial parties contracting and conducting business in writing had not produced any such document of agreement). Therefore, that the parties had for approximately 2 years mutually performed in compliance with the Sales Contract warranty terms: Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 104; [2015] HCA 37 at [47] - [49]. In this reference to contextual factual genesis of the transaction, I do not mean to infer any ambiguity or lack of clarity in the express terms of the quotation.
GFE's submission conflates the separate terms at the dot points within the quoted passage. The first dot point provides for 7 chargeable services, performed bi-annually. The second dot point provides for the entirely different subject matter of a fixed price for servicing only until December 2018 and thereafter as reviewed annually. The artificiality of that conflation led to GFE submitting the absurdity that the terms of the quotation were intended to provide for preventative maintenance servicing preceding the quotation and to apply to services in 2015 and another two services in 2016, which to the knowledge of the parties had not in fact occurred: T 226. 05 - 14

GFE's final argument in support of its submission that the parties had not in fact agreed terms of warranty at the time of making of the Sale Contact, was to put that had the parties been mindful of the Sales Contract warranty; then there would have been no need for the 30 day credit contract made 28 March 2017 because there would have been nothing for Restaurant to pay: T 227. 25. Succinctly GFE's point was that the making of the credit contract was inconsistent with the then existence of the Sales Contract warranty. I find this argument to be unpersuasive because Restaurant always had to pay for parts and labour outside of or expressly excluded by the terms of the Sales Contract warranty. For instance, it was common ground that Restaurant had to pay for consumable parts.
Both parties by written submissions dated 5 December 2022 and orally submitted that the list of exclusions from warranty in GFE's (revised) 19 April 2017 preventative maintenance service quotation were more extensive than and were inconsistent with the list of exclusions in the Sales Contract warranty. I have set out each of those sets of terms above in order for the comparison to be available to the reader of this judgment. I will proceed in these reasons on the basis of that jointly (GFE written submission 5 December 2022 at [4]; Restaurant's written submission 5 December 2022 at [4]), although not entirely consistently expressed position.
For completeness, however, I state that the correctness of that common position is not clear to me. For illustration, words submitted by Restaurant to provide for "significantly broader" exclusion in the terms of the preventative maintenance service quotation are "blockages…, gas regulator, tap wear, drainage and pipes". But, in fact, those "broader" exclusions (MD - 1, page 25) expressly limited the exclusion for blockages to pilots and burner nozzles from boil overs and excluded only regulators not supplied by GFE: see clause [4]. The limitation of reference to boil overs would be interpreted for purposes of business efficacy as events of that type, not falling within reasonably expected mishaps during reasonable and competent operation of the equipment. Specifically, gas regulators supplied by GFE were not excluded. Likewise, tap wear, pipes and the drain system below the level of the sink to trap and supplied by others, not GFE, only were excluded: see clause [11]. Accordingly, on the evidence available to me concerning the equipment, its operation and the restaurant environment, I do not understand those referred to exclusionary provisions to be broader than the terms of the warranty contained in the Sales Contract.
GFE's submission variously put that the terms of the preventative maintenance service quotation was "made in substitution for" the Sales Contract (T 223 - 224; written submission 5 December 2022 at [6]) or a refinement or variation of the supply contract warranty (T 228); in my opinion, cannot be accepted because it is contrary to the expression of the scope of works the subject of the preventative maintenance service contract. That scope was for checks, tests, calibration and reporting of faults (MD - 1, pages 23 - 24). The scope did not include provision for the undertaking of repairs. The quotation provided rates of charge for labour on breakdown and reactive services (MD - 1, page 25), but those rates would be equally applicable to ongoing performance of the Sales Contract warranty as they would apply only outside of the Sales Contract warranty cover.

The accuracy of the handwritten Annexure A, at which place in the contract the parties hand wrote their agreed contract price of $217,800 and their final agreement for deposit in the sum of $100,000, was confirmed by Mr Robertson's email for GFE on 28 August 2015 invoicing Restaurant in that pricing.
Mr Robertson's handwritten expressions recording the agreement of the 5 years warranty and Mr Barak's handwritten expression in Annexure A, were deliberate that the express term "36 Months Parts & 36 Months Labour" for warranty in the printed terms of GFE's document (MD - 1, page 15) was subjugated by the handwritten term providing for 5 years warranty in relation to Angelo Po brand equipment whilst the balance of the printed terms as to exclusions and parameters were expressly preserved. Thereby the 36 Month term prevailed in relation to the equipment which was not of Angelo Po brand.
The "parameters" included the limitation of warranty cover for labour to that performed during trading business hours of 8:30 am to 4:40 pm. Restaurant remained liable to pay GFE for the difference between the call out and labour rates applicable during normal trading hours and the after hours call out and labour rate, for warranty work performed after hours.
Restaurant remained liable to pay GFE for items, as I have discussed, falling within the description of "generally consumable" and including specifically light globes, door seals, thermocouples and also for repairs required because of misuse by it.

Whereas Restaurant submits (T 247. 20) that the Sales Contract warranty wording (MD - 1, page 15) "Parts not covered under Warranty are Generally Consumable items Light Globes, Door Seals, Thermocouples and misuse by the customer" should be construed to mean that only light globes, door seals and thermocouples were excluded consumable items; I have found against that interpretation. It does not meet with business efficacy by giving reasonable meaning to the words "Generally consumable …". Further, I reject Restaurant's submitted construction that parts but not labour performed for replacement of consumable items was not excluded from warranty. In my opinion, this sixth dot point shortly expressed terms of warranty (MD-1 page 15), do not permit that proposed severance. The very first of those terms expresses with the conjunctive "&" that it was a parts and labour warranty and not a warranty separately expressed for parts and for labour. Indeed, the fourth and fifth specific terms relating to labour charges and cost of parts respectively, follow. Restaurant's submission inverts the ejusdem generis.
I agree with Restaurant's written submission, 5 December 2022 at [8] that, if the preventative maintenance service contract promised a warranty on the Angelo Po goods sold which was subject to more extensive exclusions than the terms of warranty in the Sales Contract, it would have been uncommercial for Restaurant to agree and so reduce its entitlements for no benefit. No part of the Preventative Maintenance Service Contract states that it varies or that it is in substitution for the Sales Contract or its terms of warranty. Finally, the expression of the exclusions from warranty in the Preventative Maintenance Service Contract to be "as per the manufacturer" was at all times irrelevant to and not part of Restaurant's transaction with GFE and no expression of contemplation of the terms of warranty between Angelo Po and GFE can be found in the Sale Contact.

[8]

PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE SERVICE CONTRACT

I now come to the separate issues concerning acceptance of the preventative maintenance service contract.
Restaurant submitted at the close of the hearing on 29 July 2022 the Mr Marabani's email to Mr O'Reilly on 19 July 2017 expressing Restaurant's acceptance of Option 1 for preventative maintenance service expressed in GFE's quotation (revised) dated 19 April 2017 was not an acceptance of the terms of that quotation including the terms of warranty; but rather, a specific acceptance of only the Option 1 work. In its written submission of 5 December 2022 Restaurant changed its position to make the following submission: 1. [6] "The parties approached the case on the basis that, if the Second Contract [preventative maintenance contract] were valid, it was likely a variation of the First Contract, in that the exclusions to the 5-year warranty granted under the [Sales Contract] had been amended and restated as the exclusions listed in the [preventative maintenance contract]." 2. [7] "However, [Restaurant] accepts (assuming qua non that the [preventative maintenance contract] was binding) that the two contracts could be construed as independent and consistent. That is: 1. The [Sales Contract] was a sale contract with a 5-year warranty which remained valid until the warranty period expired; and 2. the [preventative maintenance contract] was a preventative maintenance contract which carried its own, separate warranty which did not vary the 5-year warranty in the [Sales Contract] …"
Common ground is that on 10 May 2015 the parties made the Sale Contact. Having rejected GFE's submission to the contrary, I have found that the Sales Contract was certain and provided a parts and labour warranty for five years over the Angelo Po equipment sold amongst the total of equipment the subject of the contract. My further finding, which is inevitable from my reasons to this point, is that the Preventative Maintenance Service Contract finally accepted by Mr Marabani for Restaurant on 19 July 2017 was a stand alone contract. I have found that the provision for preventative maintenance service and rates for breakdown and reactive work do not conflict with the 5 year warranty under the Sales Contract covering the Angelo Po products, but provided for separate service and for labour rates for services not covered by the warranty. The provisions of the preventative maintenance warranty concerning provision of parts, likewise, applied only to services not covered by the Sales Contract warranty. I have identified inexhaustibly, the types of work and replacement parts involving the Angelo Po equipment, not covered by the Sales Contract warranty.
Whilst determination of the issues in the case, because of the findings I have made, does not turn on the point; for completeness I now deal with the legal effect of Mr Marabani's email of the 19th of July 2017 (OM - 31).
On 13 July 2017, Mr O'Reilly stated that unless Restaurant accepted GFE's quotation (revised) dated 19 April 2017, GFE would not continue to honour (what I have found to be) the Sales Contract warranty for the balance of its term of some years. Specifically, Mr O'Reilly wrote: "Subject: RE: Revised Preventative Maintenance Programme for extended warranty … Please note … any warranty extension offered by Global Food Equipment can only be provided if … serviced bi-annually as per the previously supplied PM proposal … Monday July 17, 2017 If we do not receive a reply from you prior to the expiration date we will assume that you have not accepted our offer and will close this out of our system …"
Thus, Mr O'Reilly clearly communicated that the time for acceptance of GFE's offer would expire at close of business on 17 July 2017.
The 19 July 2017 emails between Mr O'Reilly and Mr Marabani communicated as follows: 1. O'Reilly to Marabani at 11:36 am: "Subject: FW Revised Preventative Maintenance program for extended warranty Importance High Hi Omar, as discussed, please provide written approval (email is fine) for PM servicing and advise which day we can have access to service the equipment as it is severely overdue." 1. Mr Marabani to Mr O'Reilly at 12:48 pm: "Subject re: Revised Preventative Maintenance program for extended warranty Hi James Thank you for your email, We are happy to proceed with the PM servicing with option 1 of the services, two services a year. In relation to the service we are happy to get it done ASAP to be up to date with the servicing can you arrange the earliest appointment to get it serviced."
In my opinion, Restaurant's submission that the wording of Mr Marabani's 12:48 pm email is consistent with him accepting only the option 1 preventative maintenance services, because of the expiry of the quotation offer two days before (as threatened by Mr O'Reilly on 13 July 2017); is contrary to what Mr Marabani wrote. In particular, the subject heading provides plain reference to the revised preventative maintenance program "for extended warranty" which was a clear reference to the revised quotation and its terms of contractual warranty. Mr Marabani adopted that description of subject from Mr O'Reilly's earlier email. Restaurant did not submit, nor in my opinion could it have properly been put, that Mr O'Reilly was offering acceptance of only the preventative maintenance servicing excluding the balance of the terms of the quotation. Indeed, as I heard Mr Marabani give oral evidence on the point, I understood him to be speaking of acceptance of the quotation and not just the specified work of the preventative maintenance service. He did not give that evidence. The oral evidence and those contemporaneously created email documents, in my opinion, are entirely consistent in that factual finding.
In further response to GFE's 5 December written submission, the multi-faceted submission that the Preventative Maintenance Contract was made in substitution for the Sales Contract warranty or was a refinement of variation of the Sales Contract warranty (written submission 5 December 2022 at [6]), I wish to add the following:

It is in my opinion, an unacceptable proposition against the stable background of contract and performance over the two years since the making of the Sales Contract on 10 May 2015.
The submission is premised on the same wrong basis asserted by Mr O'Reilly in his email of 13 July 2017 (OM - 30) that the parties had earlier, at or before the time of the Sales Contract, in fact agreed for the provision of preventative maintenance servicing.
The proposition of the existence of such agreement is dispelled by the circumstance of the making of the Sales Contract.
The proposition would be against not only the evidence that in April 2017, Mr Marabani told Mr O'Reilly that provision of a preventative maintenance program was the first time that he had heard of it, but also against Mr Robertsons statement to Mr Hill during in that conversation that such a program had never been arranged.
On the whole of the evidence, the first agreement for preventative maintenance was the contract made 19 July 2017.

In my opinion, the making of the stand alone Preventative Maintenance Service Contract on 19 July 2017, which contract also provided for rates for services which did not fall within the Sales Contract warranty, was an agreement accommodating both GFE's not surprising want to put in place a normal equipment maintenance program whilst the Sales Contract warranty remained unaffected, as Restaurant understood it should. It is also consistent with an agreement as to pricing for performance of the preventative maintenance and breakdown and reactive work falling outside of the Sales Contract warranty: see CV Engineering Pty Ltd v Hamilton and Marino Builders Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCA 103 at [48] - [50].
If I be wrong in my finding that on 19 July 2017 Restaurant accepted GFE's (revised) 19 April 2017 quotation; then, in my opinion, Mr Marabani's 19 July 2017 email was not an acceptance of the terms of that quotation and was a counter offer for the provision of preventative and maintenance servicing and breakdown reactive service rates only, made after expiry of GFE's quotation offer. Then GFE, by its conduct of providing preventative and maintenance services on 1 November 2017, accepted Restaurant's counter offer. Neither party put this submission.
GFE claims that it provided preventative maintenance service on 15 November 2017, but Mr Marabani lacked the technical know how to assess whether or not the work performed on that date fell within preventative maintenance. The common ground being that preventative maintenance was commenced on 1 November 2017 makes that issue not one of significance. Finding Restaurant's counteroffer to have been accepted by GFE in that way, would also be consistent with the stable contractual and performance background and Mr Marabani's refusal to accept that it not continue unaffected.

[9]

PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM ON INVOICES AND DEFENDANT'S CLAIM ON INVOICES

It is important that I make initial observations applicable to the evidence of invoices. Firstly, entries in GFE's invoices (MD - 6) referring to warranty cover such as "THIS JOB IS NOT WARRANTY because…" are of little persuasion because the evidence does not infer that the author was cognisant of the terms of the Sales Contract warranty. Indeed, the evidence is highly suggestive of GFE's contemplation of the Preventative Maintenance quote (19 April 2017) warranty terms, which I have determined to be not applicable to the Sales Contract terms of warranty cover. Secondly, whilst both parties say that the number of equipment failures, stoppages and call outs for service was abnormally high, whereas GFE says that fact infers the equipment was misused, Restaurant says it infers that the equipment was defective and/or not fit for purpose. On Mr Hill's evidence, there were 104 call outs in the period of approximately two and a half years. In my opinion, the inference for which each of them argued is not to be found on the evidence available. The evidence is not more supportive of either party's case than that of the other without expert opinion evidence assessing the equipment on its performance and assessing Restaurant's care and operation of the equipment in the working environment of the restaurant's kitchen including the workload and performance required of the equipment: Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 per Dickson CJ at page 304. In my opinion assessment of those things is outside the knowledge of persons who have not by study or experience acquired an understanding of the subject matter of commercial kitchen equipment employed in a very large restaurant: Honeysett v R (2014) 253 CLR 122; [2014] HCA 29 at [23] - [24]. Put another way, the Court does not possess experience with that subject matter such as to be competent to understand the equipment and its components and functions nor the relevant operation of a commercial kitchen in order to choose between those principle contentions of the parties or to assess fault and cause of equipment and its componentry. In this approach I do bear in mind the distinction identified by Macfarlane JA in Yebdoo v Holmewood [2021] NSWCA 110 at [50] that just because expert opinion evidence might assist a Court, does not warrant a conclusion that it is necessary. In this case, in my opinion, expert opinion evidence was necessary. I find myself, without it, simply guessing on technical questions which I do not truly understand.
Two pieces of evidence provide examples exposing why it is not reasonably available, in the absence of expert opinion evidence and applying worldly knowledge, to be sensibly persuaded of the inferences submitted for, bearing in mind that a real appreciation of the work load environment of such appliances in an extremely large commercial kitchen is not a matter for lay opinion. Each of the following examples show real evidence of defects, which a not expert person would not have gleaned merely from information of the event of misfunction and service work performed by attending GFE (or other contractor) service personnel:

For some time following initial installation, the complex, three speed commercial dishwasher function was interrupted by dishwasher motor breakdowns. Indeed, a locally supplied motor with which the dishwasher could only operate at a single speed, was fitted as a temporary fix. Exhibit 6 shows that the dishwasher was supplied with motors designed and engineered to the European standard of 389 volts and which were not suitable for operation at the Australian standard of 415 volts. This required a special version of the Angelo Po dishwasher motors to be built for fitting to the dishwasher; and
Numerous call outs were on account of oven door seals failing. Mr Robertson's evidence included his observation that oil and grease, consequent of poor cleaning, degrade door seals. The door seals were a consumable item and consumables were excluded from the Sales Contract warranty. But Exhibits 3 and 4, being correspondence between GFE and Angelo Po show that the failures occurred across GFE clients including Coles, not just Restaurant, and Angelo Po offered door seals of a new design in consequence.

[10]

GFE's Claim on Invoices

Exhibit B presents reference to all invoices for GFE service work and identifies the selection of invoices which make up GFE's claim. The invoices themselves appear in MD - 6. Annexure A are invoices to GFE from its derivative business Cater Repair Group. GFE claims for payment of work which it says was not covered by warranty.
The parties' competing submissions contained in Exhibit B, ascribe to each of the invoices upon which the plaintiff claims a debt owing, a dispute including (and most often) as to whether or not the requirement for parts and labour on the service was caused by Restaurant's misuse of the equipment. Most commonly, the misuse identified by GFE was inadequate or improper cleaning or poor operation of equipment. GFE says this is to be found on the basis of its technician's comments in the TMS and from the corresponding invoice. GFE relies on the exclusion for misuse in the terms of the warranty. Misuse is excluded in both the terms of the Sales Contract warranty. This means that if the cause of the requirement for labour or parts identified in any of the subject invoices was caused or contributed to by Restaurant's failure to clean or reasonably operate the equipment, GFE was under no obligation under the terms of the warranty.
In Kodak (Australasia) Pty Ltd v Retail Traders Mutual Indemnity Insurance Association (1942) 42 SR (NSW) 231; (1942) 59 WN (NSW) 197 - per Jordan CJ at page 202 column 1 Jordan CJ commented that the party claiming under and indemnity to prove their reasonable precautions and conduct could rely on prima facie evidence of it "by proving that it employed for the purpose an efficient works manager." In the present case Restaurant provided evidence that:

Professional oversight was employed by Chef Maher;
Managerial oversight was by the presence of general manager Mr Marabani at meal service three evenings per week and at kitchen clean up about once per month as well as his presence at the restaurant during the day;
The employed manpower of fifteen kitchen staff toward operation and cleaning of equipment; and
The retaining of contract cleaners.

Neither party presented evidence of cleaning systems or protocols, and practices undertaken by Restaurant. Mr Marabani was not cross examined on cleaning systems, or the practices of operation of the equipment by staff. Evidence of GFE personnel provided some sparse opinion based observations but no detailed observation of operation of the equipment by restaurant staff or of cleaning of the equipment by restaurant staff. There was no onus on Restaurant to cross examine witnesses called for GFE of their observations beyond that contained in their affidavit evidence. It was GFE's onus to prove that the parts and labour for which GFE invoiced Restaurant fell within exclusions of warranty: Wallaby Grip Limited v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited & another (2010) 240 CLR 444; [2010] HCA 9 at [25] (upon which case both parties relied). It was not for Restaurant to disprove it.
I provide my following findings and determination in relation to each of the invoices upon which GFE claims. I identify the work and parts by schedule B list number and the job number. I have derived monetary values from the GFE invoices contained in MD - 6 and considered the whole job description of items within invoices which, from the schedule Exhibit B, I determine to fall within exclusions for warranty or outside of warranty. 1. Item 35 - 3424684 - 1/3/2017 - gas pilot light not holding - clear debris: In my opinion, in the absence of expert opinion evidence, the evidence in the hearing does not permit me on the balance of probabilities to identify clearing of debris from the gas pilot system including its injector and tube as misuse. There is no evidence identifying what, which was not reasonably expected use, caused the blockage. On the available evidence this is so even if there was an abnormally high incidence of this misfunction type, for the reasons stated above. In addition, bearing in mind my observations made above of evidence which prima facie would show Restaurant reasonably operated and cleaned the equipment; the evidence does not satisfy me on the balance of probabilities, it being GFE's onus of proof, that the cause of the work fell within the warranty exclusion for misuse. 2. Item 39 - 3426451 - 22/3/2017 - gas regulator to cooktop blockage. I repeat my above observations concerning misuse and in particular find that GFE has not satisfied its burden of proof behind its submission "lack of general cleaning". 3. Item 45 - 3428959 - 26/4/2017 - clean pilot and injector of gas pasta cooker and dry water in control box. I repeat my above findings and opinion in relation to the claim for pilot injectors blocked and find that GFE has failed in its onus of proof of misuse. Similarly, in my opinion, in the absence of expert opinion evidence, GFE has not satisfied its obligation of proof of the cause of water in the control box to fall within an exclusion under the terms of the warranty. 4. Item 52 - 3439277 - 25/7/2017 - billed as Preventative Maintenance due according to the 19 April 2017 quoted preventative maintenance work. Evidence already gone to, including in GFE's cross-examination of Mr Marabani, was that the first preventative maintenance work occurred four months later, on 1 November 2017. I am not satisfied on the evidence that the call out was a consequence of or is to be accounted to a failure by Restaurant to organise preventative maintenance, the work having been carried out only 5 clear calendar days after Restaurant's acceptance of option 1 preventative maintenance by its email 19 July 2017. The malfunctions identified are not, on the evidence, to be found as falling within the exclusions from warranty. 5. Item 58 - 3445846 - 31/8/2017 - damaged spray arm in dishwasher. I am not satisfied in the absence of expert opinion evidence that the mere fact of a damaged spray arm in the dishwasher infers misuse as the cause of the damage. In my opinion, on the evidence GFE has not satisfied its onus of proof to show the damage was caused by misuse. 6. Item 66 - 3449446 - 20/9/2017 - clean pilot to gas cooktop burner. I repeat my observations, reasons and findings in relation to items 35, 39 and 45. 7. Item 67 - 3540148 - 25/9/2017 - pilot to gas pasta cooker not working. I repeat my observations, reasons and findings in relation to items 35, 39, 45 and 66. 8. Item 68 - 3450151 - 25/9/2017 - replace and fit heat lamp to chip hopper. I am satisfied that worldly knowledge permits me to determine that a heat lamp is a consumable item and therefore the work fell within the warranty exclusion for consumable items. The GFE invoice number 775771 shows the cost at $697.09, in regard to which amount, I allow GFE's claim. 9. Item 71 - 3454788 - 20/10/2017 - gas cooktop pilot light blockage. I repeat my observations, reasons and findings in relation to items 35, 39, 45, 66 and 67. 10. Item 74 - 3456418 - 29/10/2017 - combi oven door faulty, faulty lock, bain marie not turning on, loose fat drip tray. In regard to fault in the door, the door lock, and the bain marie fault, I can reach no finding in the absence of expert opinion evidence. Invoice 788722 shows that whilst working on the wedge lock to the oven door, two door seals were replaced. Generally, door seals were consumable items. According to the invoice, the total cost for the two seals was $747.46. However, as I observed above, Exhibits 3 and 4 show that Angelo Po and GFE in October 2016 observed that the door seals were faulty. The evidence does not permit me to differentiate between the door seals the subject of those communications and the door seals the subject of the work. It was a term of the Sales Contract warranty that any consumable item found to be faulty upon commissioning would be replaced under warranty at no charge to the customer. Accordingly, in my opinion, in the absence of further and also expert opinion evidence, GFE has failed in its onus of proof to show that the door seals were a consumable item within the exclusion under the warranty. 11. Item 79 - 3459001 - 2/11/2017 - damage to dishwasher - the tradespersons observation of use of damaged dishwasher trays. In the absence of further evidence, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the damage to the dishwasher trays was such as to be caused by misuse or to be noticeable to kitchen staff performing reasonable operation of the dishwasher. The evidence does not permit me to assess the extent of that damage to the trays. In my opinion, in the absence of further and also expert opinion evidence, GFE has failed in its onus of proof of misuse. 12. Item 80 - 3459003 - 12/11/2017 - fit new pilot and thermocouple. Thermocouples were consumable. The evidence available does not permit me to be satisfied whether or not the pilot device was a consumable and therefore I assume it to be covered by the warranty. The evidence is that on 1 November 2017 and 15 November 2017, which dates bridged the event of this work, GFE performed preventative maintenance services. The relevant tax invoice 787037 does not give a price for the Thermocouple. Restaurant concedes $155.00. In my opinion, in the absence of further evidence and also expert opinion evidence, GFE has not satisfied its onus of proof as to any of the labour cost because other labour under warranty for the attendance was involved as well and the cost of the thermocouple is not available. I allow $155.00. 13. Item 85 - 3469256 - 12/11/2017 - replace light inside oven. Under the express warranty exclusion, light globe is a consumable item. Invoice 788106 establishes the cost of the light fitted at $16.76. Labour and all other charges are not shown to fall within a warranty exclusion because the attendance involved also the replacement of faulty gaskets. I allow $16.76. 14. Item 103 - 3491250 - 14/5/2018 - test and diagnose fault code on combi oven. GFE claims for consumable items falling within the warranty exclusion but Exhibit B does not identify those items. The relevant invoice number 808729 refers to an attendance required because of an error code displayed on the combi oven. In the absence of further and also expert opinion evidence, GFE has not satisfied me that labour cost for that purpose of attendance fell within warranty exclusion. The invoice says that water filters on both ovens needed to be replaced. The preventative maintenance service quotation, 19 April 2017 includes filter replacement as an item within routine six monthly servicing. That is evidence inferring that the filter was a consumable. In addition, the invoice lists the cost of part at $0.00. I find that GFE has failed in its onus of proof of establishing a cost falling within a warranty exclusion or outside warranty. 15. Item 105 - 3492214 - 20/5/2016 - ongoing intermittent hotplate calibration problem. The submission is that on arrival no fault was found. Common worldly experience is of taking intermittently faulty appliances to service only for the fault not to present itself to the technician. GFE submits that no fault was found, which event does not, in my opinion, establish on the balance of probabilities that Restaurant's call out was unreasonable or that the equipment was not faulty. The record of service referred to there having been a prior attendance and that the fault was ongoing. The serviceperson's trial and investigation lasted only 30 minutes. In the absence of further and expert opinion evidence, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that GFE has shown the work to fall within a warranty exclusion or as otherwise being based on unreasonable or incompetent operation of the equipment by Restaurant. I am not satisfied that GFE has shown the work to fall outside of warranty. 16. Item 106 - 3492215 - 20/5/2018 - very low gas on cooktop - injectors blocked. As for items 35, 39, 45, 66, 67 and 71, on the evidence available to me I am not satisfied that GFE has shown the work to fall within a warranty exclusion or outside of warranty. 17. Item 107 - 3492216 - 20/5/2018 - dishwasher - conveyor not working, line needed to be welded inside the machine. On the evidence available I am not able to determine on the balance of probabilities that the breakage or damage to the dishwasher was caused by misuse. Indeed, there is no evidence of what form that misuse by operation took. 18. Item 111 - 3497306 - 18/6/2018 - salamander not turning on and cooktop not working because of gas injector blockage. Earlier in these reasons I commented that the observation of a worker on an occasion that the salamander was left on, in the absence of further evidence as to why and of what the operation of the kitchen was at the time and in the absence of expert opinion evidence assessing such operation, there is not evidence upon which I am satisfied of misuse. Accordingly, I reject that part of the claim. In regard to blockage of the injector I repeat my observations, reasons and findings in relation to items 35, 39, 45, 66, 67, 71 and 106. 19. Item 112 - 3497307 - 18/6/2028 - chip hopper. GFE submits that it is entitled to recovery of this invoice cost because on attendance to test for the cause of the chip hopper not heating, no fault was found. Invoice 811410 shows that the investigation was of duration of 20 minutes. For the reasons given in relation to item 105, I am not satisfied on the evidence available, to the standard of balance of probabilities that the call out was unreasonable according to standards of competent commercial kitchen operation and that the equipment was not faulty. 20. Item 113 - 3500344 - 3/7/2018 - chip warmer lamp out - replace voltage regulator knob. Whilst the chip warmer lamp, in my opinion and based on worldly experience, was a consumable item and therefore the replacement of the part fell within the exclusion to the warranty; the voltage regulator knob, on the evidence available, is not shown by GFE to have been damaged by unreasonable or incompetent use. Exhibit 5, contains email evidence that in March 2017 Mr Noth from Angelo Po, Italy, found several knobs for appliances which were already "replacement" knobs to be found by him to be faulty. In the absence of further and expert opinion evidence, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities, that the cause of the voltage regulator knob replacement was misuse falling within the warranty exclusions or falling outside of warranty. The cost of labour in invoice 813972 was not only for replacement of the lamp. For that reason GFE has not shown the cost of labour to fall within a warranty exclusion. I allow the cost of the lamp as shown in the invoice at $239.97. 21. Item 115 - 3501313 - 9/7/2018 - gas oven pilot not holding. Again, GFE alleges lack of care and/or cleaning. I repeat my observations, reasons and findings in relation to items 35, 39, 45, 66, 67, 71, 106 and 111. I am not satisfied on the evidence available that the work the subject of the invoice fell within a warranty exclusion or was outside of warranty cover. 22. Item 116 - 3501314 - 9/7/2018 - gas grill not working - fit parts to flat top grill - replace thermocouple. Invoice 815621 shows that the work involved attending to several issues and replacement of parts to the flat top grill. In the course of the work, GFE's service person observed that the electrical wall socket was broken and not switching off power. Accordingly, the wall socket was not part of a cause of the function failure of the equipment. The wall socket was a matter for Restaurant's external electrician to attend. So far as I am able to understand that evidence, there was no labour or parts cost concerning the wall socket incurred by GFE. The evidence does not establish to the balance of probabilities that failure of the wall socket, even had there been a cost to GFE attributable to it, was caused by unreasonable or incompetent use by Restaurant. To my understanding, the claim is then reduced to one for replacement of the consumable part being the thermocouple. The invoice does not attribute any value to that part. The evidence does not satisfy GFE's onus of proof of cost of parts or labour falling within a warranty exclusion. I cannot know whether Restaurant's single concession of $155.00 for cost of a thermocouple includes this item. I have already applied it once. I do not understand that I am able to do so more than once. 23. Item 117 - 3504939 - 25/7/2018 - moisture in dishwasher motor. GFE submits that the cause of the moisture in the motor was from either poor cleaning practices or from condensate from the above exhaust hood. Earlier in my reasons I discussed the evidence of the trades persons' theories on observation and reasoned, that I was not satisfied, without expert opinion evidence, as to cause of the moisture in the motor. I have in more detail above, dealt with the inadequacy of the evidence presented by GFE to satisfy its burden of proof of showing misuse by incompetent or unreasonable cleaning methods or standards. On the evidence I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the work claimed falls within a warranty exclusion or outside of warranty. 24. Item 119 - 3505405 - 28/7/18 - dishwasher making loud knocking noise. On testing, the service person discovered a spoon in a pump jamming the dishwasher operation and a burnt out motor. Invoice 819989 records that the spoon had pierced the side of the pump. The pump was replaced. The invoice also records that on Mr Marabani's request the service person secured the dish drain so that it could not be removed during cleaning. In the absence of further and expert opinion evidence I am unable to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities whether the design and security of the dish drain caused or contributed to the spoon lodging in the pump propeller. There is no evidence explain why use would be unreasonable if it caused the spoon to lodge in the pump propeller. In the absence of such further evidence, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there was misuse by incompetent or unreasonable operation of the dishwasher or of the cleaning practices. 25. Item 120 - 3508827 - 14/8/2018 - combi oven leaking water and seals are broken again - replace door seal. The word "again" in the description of this item as it appears in schedule B, illustrates the issue for GFE in proof that the replacement of the consumable door seal, fell within the warranty exclusion or outside the warranty. Again, the evidence, in my opinion, does not establish on the balance of probabilities the door seal was not itself faulty: see my reasons concerning item 74 above and reference to Exhibits 3 and 4.
For the above reasons I am satisfied that GFE, on the evidence available is entitled to recovery on its selected invoices in Exhibit B in the sum of $1,108.82.

[11]

Restaurant's Cross Claim on Invoices

At [154] of his affidavit, Mr Marabani identified invoices for repair of works to the equipment within OM - 101. Restaurant's claim for recovery of payment for services which properly fell within the Sales Contract Warranty is only presented on the basis of the evidence of those invoices and from Mr Marabani's evidence of the frequency of equipment misfunctions and his complaints to GFE. The invoices are from several contractors other than GFE, retained by Restaurant to perform those services. No issue is raised as to whether or not the invoices were in fact paid. The first 18 identified invoices in MFI 10 are those upon which Restaurant sues in the Cross Claim. They span the period 13 June 2017 to 4 August 2020.
In response to item 1, an invoice dated 13 June 2017 from Cater Repair Group, GFE submits that Restaurant undertook itself to retain the external contractors directly when GFE had not refused to attend service calls. GFE points to the unchallenged evidence of Mr Hill that he only asked for Restaurant's account to be placed on hold on around 18 August 2018: affidavit Hill at [22]. GFE points also to the evidence referred to in its submission Exhibit B of GFE's provision of services within the period of the MFI 10 invoices. Mr Hill's evidence at [17] was that on 24 May 2018 GFE engaged a debt collection agency to pursue Restaurant for payment of outstanding invoices. His affidavit and the correspondence annexed (such as SH - 4) confirms that from November 2017, there was substantial disputation between the parties not just as to payment of invoices for GFE's services but also as to delay in repair and rectification of the equipment, particularly because GFE did not have parts available.
On the whole of the evidence, Restaurant's want for the equipment to function in order for it to continue to operate its business on the one hand, and GFE's issues with continuing to provide the services, had by some stage within the year 2017 become a live dispute of significance. GFE does not repeat that submission in relation to any other item in MFI 10. The parties did not contest whether or not it was a term of the Sales Contract warranty that only GFE perform the servicing. It was not put by GFE that Restaurant's retainer of subcontractors was a breach of contract. At [22] of his affidavit Mr Hill deposed that when GFE put Restaurant's account on hold, he believed that GFE had completed "all open jobs falling within the conditional warranty", but that begs the question as to whether or not there were jobs that had not been serviced, including because GFE was wrongly relying on the Preventative Maintenance Service Contract terms of warranty and not on the Sales Contract terms of warranty. Neither Mr Hill nor Mr Marabani were cross examined on these issues.
In my opinion, GFE's submission raises a side issue and not an impediment, in the circumstances of the commercial relationship between the parties and their dispute. It does not prohibit Restaurant being successful in its claims put forward in MFI 10 if the work invoiced fell within the Sales Contract warranty.
More generally and applying principles of law, evidence and onus referred to earlier; in the absence of evidence prima facie identifying the labour and parts with cover under the warranty; then, no obligation of proof (otherwise to rebut that presumption) falls on GFE. Restaurant bears the evidentiary onus of satisfying the Court of the prima facie presumption that the invoiced work was incurred in response to a fault or defect in order to establish the necessary connection with the warranty under which it claims. This is not to say that Restaurant bears any onus at all to disprove the opposite propositions that the invoiced work did not fall beyond the warranty cover or was not within the express terms of exclusion from warranty at MD - 1, page 15: Wallaby Grip Limited v QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited & another (2010) 240 CLR 444; [2010] HCA 9.
A significant observation is that the evidence supporting Restaurant's submissions of claim in MFI 10, does not include the content of the described fault or failure for the call out and usually the invoices do not provide the same particularity of equipment failure as were described in Exhibit B and derived from GFE's invoices (MD - 6) and the TSM schedule (Exhibit 1).
I respectfully apply the description of prima facie case given in the Full Federal Court of Australia in Ho v Akai Pty Ltd (in liq) [2006] FCAFC 159 at [10]: "…it should not call for a substantial enquiry (authorities cited). For present purposes it is sufficient to say that a prima facie case for relief is made out if, on the material before the court, inferences are open which, if translated into findings of fact, would support the relief claimed (authority cited)."
In my opinion, even if one were to assume that the invoiced work by contractors was only retained by Restaurant in the event of some observed problem with the operation of the equipment, unless the evidence establishes prima facie at least identification of the nature of the fault, there is no presumption that the cost invoiced for the work was within warranty. This is because, Restaurant will have failed to have evidenced a prima facie connection between the invoiced work and the warranty cover.
As reasoned above, Restaurant having established a prima facie case of reasonable and competent operation of kitchen equipment and of cleaning, the onus of proof that claims fall within warranty exclusions or outside of warranty, on the balance of probabilities, remains with GFE.
I provide my following findings and determination in relation to each of the invoices upon which Restaurant claims. (1) Item 1 - Cater Repair Invoice 1612 - 13/6/2017 - for blocked pilots - tradesperson recommended pilots be covered during cleaning. That the technician recommended that Restaurant cover the pilots when cleaning "to prevent further blockages" is not evidence contrary to Restaurant's prima facie case of a reasonable and competent cleaning system. The brief entry of those words in the invoice could be quite misleading and invite speculation. For instance, the service person might have recorded not more than his response of what possibly more could be done by restaurant staff in response to a staff members comment that the pilot injectors were more prone to blockage than that staff member had experienced in other kitchens or with other brands on appliance. On the other hand, it could be a suggestion of what more could be done in the sense of adding a further protocol for protection against blockages whilst cleaning. The evidence does not give those words content such as for them to raise an inference at law. Most obviously, placing covers over pilot injectors during cleaning was not a suggestion of any GFE service person according to the evidence. In my opinion, and again in the absence of expert opinion evidence, I am unable to arrive at a preference between the competing submissions based on high number of blockage service call-outs. Accordingly, to a prima facie level I am not satisfied that the cause of the incurring of the service expense fell within the exclusion for misuse or outside of warranty cover. I allow $273.50. (2) Item 2 - not pressed. (3) Item 3 - City Technicians Invoice 080319 - 8/3/2019 - Work described included testing of a "unit" and repair to combi oven. The fault in the oven which was repaired is not identified. The work also involved replacement of an on/off switch and also "to replace door seal". The invoice does not provide evidence of whether the switch was a part of the combi oven or the "unit" or something else external to the combi oven. It is not clear that the on/off switch was a part of the oven. The invoice reads as though the door seal replacement was a future task. The invoice billed for the cost of the switch and labour but not for cost of a door seal. I am not persuaded that a door seal replacement was included. I am unable to ascertain that the on/off switch was work falling within the warranty cover of the combi oven. On the evidence available I am not persuaded to a prima facie level that the invoice concerned work falling within warranty cover. (4) Item 4 - Gas Tech Solutions Invoice 1014 - 11/3/2019 - the invoice describes the work attendance as responding to damage "due to fusion" which damaged the "board". I assume that the "board" was part of an electrical componentry. Also, a door gasket (I assume a door seal) and a glass door hinge were repaired. Worldly experience is consistent with GFE's submission that "fusion" is an event often associated with a power surge which would normally be a site problem caused by electrical supply, not the equipment. There is no evidence of the cause of the fusion otherwise. The information contained in the invoice is not sufficient for me to determine on the balance of probabilities whether all of the damage the subject of the repair was caused by the "fusion" or not. In the absence of further or expert opinion evidence, I am unable to determine whether the invoice concerned a claim falling under warranty. (5) Item 5 - Gas Tech Solutions Invoice 1015 - 11/3/2019 - replace "ceremony element" on chip warmer - repair bain marie. The information contained in the invoice is insufficient for me to determine what a "ceremony element" is and what was the cause of its replacement on the chip warmer. The information is insufficient for me identify the cause of repair to the bain marie. The evidence does not persuade me to a prima facie level that the work fell within warranty. (6) Item 6 - City Technicians Invoice 220319 - 22/3/2019 - replacement of "filter" and "programmers" to combi ovens. The evidence does not permit me to understand what the "filter" and "programmers" were. GFE submits that there is no evidence as to why the filter or programmer needed to be replaced or how they were covered by warranty. I agree that there is no evidence of the cause of the service work being required. That the filter is described as a "non-refundable" item, provides me with no assistance in my lay understanding of the parts and the work. The preventative maintenance service contract dealt with filters in equipment as a consumable item. The available evidence does not satisfy me on the balance of probabilities that the replacement of the filters and programmers fell within the cover of the warranty. The evidence does not persuade me to a prima facie level that the work was within warranty. (7) Item 7 - City Technicians Invoice 290819 - 28/3/2019 - significant work to dishwasher including replacement of three "solenoid vales" (assume valves). Worldly experience causes me to understand that a solenoid is an electrical device often associated with a switch mechanism. The invoice infers that the solenoids were associated with valves. The evidence does not permit me to understand whether or not solenoids or valves fell within warranty. By this I do not place upon Restaurant an onus to disprove that they were consumable items. I mean that the evidence does not permit me to identify them sufficiently to understand what they were as components and therefore whether they fell within warranty. The invoice detail infers a valve problem in the dishwasher as well as the control cabinet being filled with water and significant electrical malfunctions including burnt cables and a burnt conveyor motor terminal. The evidence does establish to a prima facie standard the cause of the failure requiring the service to be performed. The evidence does not persuade me to a prima facie level that the work fell within warranty. (8) Item 8 - Gas Tech Solutions Invoice 1226 - 14/10/2019 - replace "wash tank assembly" and door gasket. The evidence does not permit me to understand what a "wash tank assembly" was. As for item 4 I assume that the door gasket was a door seal and not within warranty cover because it was a consumable unless it was of the faulty design superseded by Angelo Po. The evidence does not permit me to understand the cause for the service work. On the evidence I am not satisfied to a prima facie level that the invoice was for labour and parts within warranty. (9) Item 9 - Gas Tech Solutions Invoice 1227 - 14/10/2019 - replace oven isolator switch - clean blocked pilots - replace bain marie element - replaced thermocouple to top burner. Restaurant does not press the cost of replacement of the thermocouple. I assume this is because a thermocouple was expressly excluded under the Sales Contract warranty. Cleaning blocked pilots was prima facie within warranty for the reasons given during consideration of GFE's Exhibit B invoices. An isolator switch I would understand to be an electrical component. The "element" in the bain marie I would assume to be an electrical component. The evidence does not identify what the "element" is and is insufficient, to persuade my lay understanding of a presumption the elements were parts falling within warranty cover. The evidence is silent as to cause for the work to be carried out after four years of operation. GFE submits that the majority of the labour would have involved replacing the isolator switch and thermocouple. GFE submits that there is insufficient evidence in relation to the "element". Doing the best that I can with the evidence, I allow 50% of the labour charge for replacement of the isolator switch and cleaning blocked pilots plus $172 for the cost of the isolator making a total of $284.50. (10) Item 10 - Gas Tech Solutions Invoice 1230 - 17/10/2019 - replace element and 'o' ring in fryer. Again, I assume the "element" is an electrical component but again the evidence is insufficient to identify what the "element" was for my understanding such that I am not persuaded to presume it was a part falling within warranty. Worldly knowledge does permit me to understand that an "O'ring" to be a consumable item. The evidence is silent as to cause of the work after 4 years of operation. GFE submits that the evidence is insufficient proof of why the work was done. I agree that the evidence does not satisfy me of the prima facie presumption that the work fell within warranty. (11) Item 11 - Gas Tech Solutions Invoice 1264 - 13/11/2019 - replace o'ring on right fryer as it was leaking oil. GFE submits that this item appears to be replacing a part installed by Gas Tech Solutions, not GFE, less than 1 month before. See the item 10 work. I agree that the evidence is insufficient for me to understand whether or not the work involved a part installed by that other contractor. In any event, as already observed I understand o'rings to be a consumable item. There is no evidence of cause of or fault. The evidence does not satisfy me of a prima facie presumption that the work fell within warranty. (12) Item 12 - Gas Tech Solutions Invoice 1270 - 20/11/2019 - replace element and gasket on fryer. In regard to "element", as above, I assume it to have been an electrical component but I do not understand what it was. The evidence does not assist me with that issue. I do not know what the gasket was but worldly knowledge suggests that gaskets and seals often fall within the description of consumable. GFE submits that the work was to replace a part installed by a non Dunbrae technician according to earlier MFI 10 items. There is no evidence of fault or cause for the work being required. The evidence does not satisfy me of a prima facie presumption that the work fell within warranty. (13) Item 13 - Gas Tech Solutions Invoice 1308 - 12/12/2019 - replace door lock spring and humidity cable sensor. GFE concedes that the "Works would ordinarily be covered by warranty". GFE submits that there is insufficient evidence as to cause and fault. In my opinion, the concession that the works would ordinarily fall within warranty is persuasive of a prima facie presumption that the work did fall within warranty, which presumption is not rebutted by GFE's submission of no evidence of fault or cause for the work. It is GFE's onus, at the standard of balance of probabilities, to rebut the presumption of fact it conceded. There is no evidence of rebuttal. I allow $2,648.02. (14) Item 14 - City Technicians Invoice 100120 - 10/1/2020 - refit drive unit to dishwasher conveyor, to organise welding and new bearing for drive unit - replace door seal on number 2 combi oven - used Rational 20 tray seal cut and made to suit. The cost of the door seal is not pressed by Restaurant, assumedly because it was a consumable item. GFE submits that damage to motors and welding infers misuse. GFE submits that the requirement for motor replacement in the earlier item 7 infers that this repair was of "similar work" done by an outside contractor 9 months before. In my opinion, the mere fact of damage to the drive unit does not on the balance of probabilities satisfy me that the cause was misuse. However, unlike as was the case for GFE's Exhibit B records, the City Technicians Invoice and the whole of the evidence does not address fault or cause for the work. In the absence of evidence of fault or cause and Restaurant's failure to differentiate the item 7 work from this item 14 work, I am not satisfied of the prima facie presumption that the work fell within warranty. (15) Item 15 - City Technicians Invoice 140220 - 14/2/2020 - replace door seal on combi oven - replace 2 x 10 amp fuses with 10 amp mini circuit breakers. On the evidence it is not available for me to understand whether or not 10 amp fuses prima facie fall within warranty. My worldly experience based understanding is that old fashion (say 30 years ago) 10 amp electrical fuses were consumable and required replacement following an electrical fault but that fuses of more recent design are not because after an electrical fault they are reset. But, I simply do not understand "fuses" as the subject here. Restaurant does not press the cost of the door seal assumedly because it was a consumable item. GFE says the electrical items were excluded from warranty but did so by wrongly referencing the 2017 Preventative Maintenance Service Contract. In any event, for the reason given, I am not satisfied of the prima facie presumption that work related to the fuses fell within warranty. The invoice speaks of replacement of the fuses with a part of a different description "circuit breaker" which on the evidence and at my lay level of understanding, was likely to be a different type of component. The evidence does not satisfy me of the prima facie presumption that the replacement work fell within warranty because I do not infer that original type of part was the subject of the service. On the evidence I am not satisfied of the prima facie presumption that the work fell within warranty.

[13]

Consideration of MFI 10 (continued) (16) Item 16 - City Technicians Invoice 170320 - 17/3/2020 - replace 2 gas value control thermostats on flat plate. GFE's submission relies on an exclusion under the 2017 Preventative Maintenance Service Contract, which contract I have found to not apply to this warranty claim. But the number 5 of those exclusions referred to by GFE refers to gas regulators. From this, I understand GFE to state that "gas valve control thermostat" to be some sort of gas regulator which requires bi-annual checking (see preventative maintenance and service list of checks at MD - 1, page 24) which infers after 4 and a half years of operation that the gas valve control thermostat was potentially a generally consumable item within the terms of the Sales Contract warranty exclusion. The evidence does not explain to me what the part is. The evidence simply does not, on my lay understanding, prima facie identify the part replaced as falling within warranty. Again, recognising that it is GFE's onus to prove the part fell within an exclusion to the warranty, not for Restaurant to prove that it did not; nevertheless, the evidence does not satisfy me of a prima facie presumption that the part was within warranty. I simply do not understand, on the evidence, what it was. Worldly knowledge indicates that thermostats are often consumables. (17) Item 17 - A1 Catering Equipment Repairs Invoice 200720 - 20/7/2020 - replace drive unit for conveyor or dishwasher - stripped and reassembled. To my lay understanding, the item 17 work of substantial strip down and replacement of the drive unit for the dishwasher conveyor and reassembling follows only about 6 months after the work by City Technicians of similar description of major refitting of the drive unit to the dishwasher conveyor. To my lay understanding that infers that the item 17 work was a repair of the work of that other contractor, City Technicians. Nothing in the City Technicians invoice for item 14 or the A1 Catering Equipment Repairs Invoice in this item describes that the refitting employed GFE supplied parts. In fact, the item 14 invoice details shows that City Technicians used a door deal replacement which had to be cut to fit, inferring that City Technicians were not using original specification or GFE supplied parts. GFE submits that refitting of motors after 6 months infers misuse. There is no evidence of fault or cause for the service. On the evidence I am not satisfied of a prima facie presumption that the work fell within warranty. (18) Item 18 - Cater Repair Invoice 10921 - 4/8/2020 - hi limit fault of small flat top grill linked out - thermostat switching off and incorrect temperature requiring "new eurosit valve" - pasta boiler and pilot not holding - fitted new pilot and thermocouple - found gas pressure low requiring new regulator - large flat top grill needs new ignition starter - brat pan needs to be manually lit requiring full assessment. My first observation is that on the evidence I do not understand what the parts and work supplied were. The evidence does not identify or explain what a "hi limit faulty linked out" is. Again, my lay understand is that a thermostat can be a consumable item. The evidence does not permit me to identify or understand what a "eurosit valve" is. The inference is that eurosit is a brand other than a part GFE supplied. The cost of the thermocouple to the pasta boiler is not claimed by Restaurant, assumedly because it was a consumable. I note the "pilot" was not "holding" but there is no evidence of what that means or of the cause of the misfunction. GFE had not provided service to Restaurant for approximately 2 years preceding this work. Most of the cost is for labour and the narrative of the invoice suggests mainly that checks were performed. Parts charged for were the "pilot assembly" and the thermocouple. GFE submits that the evidence makes is unclear whether or not the works fell within warranty. On the evidence, I am not satisfied of the prima facie presumption that the work fell within warranty.

Total allowed for defendant/cross claimant claim for repair, costs under warranty: $3,206.02.

[14]

Restaurant's primary cross-claim case properly under warranty

In closing submissions, Restaurant described its claims for relief pursuant to the ACL and as an "alternative argument" (T 248. 16), its "primary case" being its claim for recovery of payment of invoices for services which Restaurant alleged were for warranty work (T 250. 38), as set out in its submission MFI 10 (T 250. 38). Neither party suggested there was any challenge as to whether or not those invoices had been paid.
Restaurant submits that on the evidence the equipment was not of "acceptable quality" within the meaning of ACL, s 54(2). The submission was not put forward on the basis that specific pieces of equipment themselves were to be considered separately as not of "acceptable quality".
Mr Marabani deposed that in February 2020 he arranged to have the oven door seals replaced for both ovens using an alternative manufacturer's parts and that those door seal remained intact for almost a year (Marabani affidavit at [149]). His evidence also was that in November 2020 one of the combi ovens completely stopped working and that the second combi oven was continuing to "give us a lot of trouble at the time" (the screen constantly failing, stopping in the middle of service, faulty washing cycle, does not reach temperature): Marabani affidavit at [150]. There was no evidence before me permitting me to identify whether or not the first oven ceased to work because of a defect and if so, what that defect was. There was no evidence before me permitting me to understand whether the problems Mr Marabani complained of in relation to the second combi oven were caused by a defect and if so what the nature of that defect was. The ovens had by then been serviced by contractors other than GFE for some time. Thereafter Mr Marabani deposed, and I comment, as follows: "[151] In December 2020 and January 2021 [Restaurant]…purchased two new ovens at a total cost of $59,222.10." Comment: There is no evidence before me identifying the specification for, capacity of and technical comparison of the replacement ovens for the ovens sold and supplied by GFE pursuant to the Sales Contract. The invoice annexed (OM - 99) does not, to my lay understanding, provide that information. There is no evidence as to the performance of those replacement ovens in comparison to the performance of the subject ovens over time. "[152] We considered selling the old ovens but decided against doing so to avoid creating ongoing problems for any new owner." Comment: There is no evidence before me as to the residual value of the ovens supplied by GFE. "[153] On September 2021 [Restaurant]…purchased a new dishwasher at a cost of $61,444.35" Comment: As for [151] above, there is no evidence before me by which I can compare the replacement with the GFE supplied dishwasher.
As a general observation in relation to Mr Marabani's paragraphs [150] - [153], concerning combi ovens and the dishwasher, it would not be available on the basis of my lay understanding, to compare the items by price paid. Indeed, so far as I am able to understand it; the prices Restaurant paid for the replacement appliances were much higher than those ascribed for the subject items in the Sales Contract made 10 May 2015. But that lay observation may not only be of no value, it may even be misleading, so I do not move on the basis of it. Neither party addressed the observation of difference of price in their submissions.
In closing, Restaurant conceded that the factual considerations under s 54 upon which "acceptable quality" is to be assessed, would "generally speaking" be proven by expert evidence. Restaurant elected to proceed in this case without expert evidence. Restaurant asks that inferences be drawn from the following factors:

The abnormally high raw numbers of services, repairs and misfunctions;
The Angelo Po equipment was "high end kitchenware";
The equipment was for use in a large commercial kitchen;
GFE represented that the equipment was of high quality and suitable for use in a large commercial kitchen; and
The equipment was sold and supplied with a 5 year warranty.

Each of these points is common ground.
Restaurant points to the fact that largely repairs and servicing was covered by GFE under warranty; but, that does not in itself infer that the equipment was defective or of unacceptable quality both because the evidence shows that on occasions GFE did not render invoices for work for which warranty cover was questionable for reasons of goodwill and because to some measure not better defined by expert opinion evidence, repair and servicing of the equipment in the very high use of the commercial kitchen to the 500 seat restaurant was to be expected (T 105. 12 - 106. 7). Mr Roberts's evidence was: OAKS Q. By any measure, for brand new premium kitchen equipment, it'd be very unusual for that equipment to require 20 services in its first year of use. Wouldn't it? A. Depends on how it's maintained. Q. Sir, are you saying that brand new equipment on the day it arrives need to be maintained on the day that it is first installed? A. Well, over that period of time, you'd expect some preventative maintenance to have been done because it's a wear and tear item, it's in high use, and it does need to be serviced in a preventative maintenance type of way, just like a - a car does when you buy it. Q. But if I had purchased a car, I don't need to put it into maintenance the day I purchased it. Do I? A. Not the day you purchased. No. HIS HONOUR: Let's move away from cars. OAKES: Yes. That-- HIS HONOUR: It's [an] entirely different prospect. OAKES: Back to the-- HIS HONOUR: In fact, I wouldn't find any assistance from the general proposition of a car, but there's nothing, [of] similarity, in worldly experience between a car and, for instance, a pressurised espresso machine. OAKES: Your Honour's quite right and I won't seek to-- HIS HONOUR: No. I'm just letting you know-- OAKES: --maintain this analogy. HIS HONOUR: --you can ask the questions, but I wouldn't [find it to be of] the use in the answers. Yes. Go on. OAKES Q. My question was, in its first year of use, is it your evidence that preventative maintenance is necessary from the moment a kitchen item of this nature are purchased? A. After a period of time. Yes. Q. And what period of time? A. The first three months.
Restaurant points to the follow specific matters of repair to which I provide my observations:

That there was a breakdown of the dishwasher on 2 February 2016 before it was even commissioned (T 251). Observation: The evidence however, which in my opinion is against a finding that for this reason alone the dishwasher was not of acceptable quality, was that the defect was immediately rectified and on the later discovery that the motors within the dishwasher were not for Australian specification, new motors were provided. Obviously, the old motors rendered the equipment at first instance not of acceptable quality, but under warranty that was a matter properly corrected.
That the door seals required replacement on 28 October 2016, 11 January 2017, 9 February 2017, 16 March 2017, 25 August 2017 and 30 October 2017 and that, the evidence of the Preventative Maintenance Contract Warranty is in favour of finding that the consumable life of a door seal ought to have been 12 months. Observation: A submission (T 248. 45) focused on the instance of a single problematic door seal. The facts are however, that door seals were replaced, and that Angelo Po introduced a new design. Whilst a door seal defect, if it was the cause of door seals as a component being of unacceptable quality for a period, was to be singled out; in my opinion, because of the warranty cover, that did not render, the ovens themselves to be not of acceptable quality. General Observation: Throughout the case, the fact upon which Restaurant most relied was the raw statistic of 104 services of the equipment in the two and three quarter years up until 22 August 2018. As a matter of pure math, that calculates to less than one service per week, to all of the equipment supplied, in the context of this 500 seat capacity commercial kitchen restaurant. There is no evidence of the actual work load. Again, there is no expert opinion evidence assessing whether or not that was performance of equipment of "acceptable quality". The common evidence of an abnormally high call out for service to the restaurant upon GFE, I have found does not persuade me of either of the competing inferences for which the parties contest. Whereas Restaurant says that it infers that the equipment was not of "acceptable quality", GFE says that it indicates that the equipment was not well enough maintained and/or was misused. Without rehashing the bulk of the evidence, and recognising that a chef, fifteen kitchen staff and professional cleaners attended to the equipment at the restaurant; I remain of the view that without the assistance of expert opinion evidence assessing that performance, I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities to make the inference Restaurant argues for.

GFE maintained throughout the case that in the absence of expert opinion evidence, the Court could not be satisfied that the equipment was not fit for purpose and within s 54 not of "acceptable quality". Specifically, that in the absence of expert opinion evidence, the Court could not conclude that the equipment was defective in materials or workmanship. That in the absence of expert opinion evidence, the Court could not conclude that the equipment was not of a high quality suitable for use in the restaurant.
GFE submitted that Restaurant "effectively admits to having not mitigated its loss by deciding not to sell the equipment.": T 41. 10 - 39.
Each of GFE's submissions is properly made in my opinion. I have observed that there is no evidence of the cleaning protocols, equipment operation and systems employed, nor is there any evidence of what cleaning services ought reasonably to have been employed. It is simply unavailable for me on the evidence to determine what the significance of the high service call out was and what its causes were. There is no expert opinion evidence of the cause of faults in contemplation of operation of the equipment in that environment of a commercial kitchen servicing a 500 seat restaurant. In the absence of expert opinion evidence, I am unable to determine whether or not the frequency and nature of occurrence of services in that environment infers a fact of misuse or a deficiency in the equipment. I repeat, as I put to the parties, a starting point for such consideration, even by an expert, would likely to be informed of the work load upon the equipment. As I have already observed, there is no evidence of that either.
The test of "acceptable quality" under s 54 includes that the equipment was free from defects as well as being fit for all of the purposes for which it would be commonly applied in such a kitchen: Vautin v BY Winddown, Inc (formally Bertram Yachts) (No. 4) [2018] FCA 426. The Vautin Case exemplifies the value of expert opinion evidence in cases such as the present, where sophisticated or technical goods are concerned. That case concerned a very large ocean-going sport and pleasure motor yacht. In this case, the equipment is sophisticated and highly technical appliances for a commercial kitchen. In Vautin, that the composite fibre glass structure of the hull of the vessel was defective was not in issue. The question of "acceptable quality" turned on analysis of the defect and what various propositions for repair of the defect would deliver in terms of the fitness for purpose of the vessel. In the present case (except for the dishwasher motor and oven door seal items which I have dealt with), whether or not the equipment was defective is not addressed in specific terms and there is no expert opinion evidence analysing the causes of the invoiced services performed. There is no expert opinion evidence of ongoing serviceability of the equipment and its fitness for the purpose of servicing the 500 seat restaurant. In this regard, I notice, but neither party made a pointed submission about it, that Mr Marabani's evidence amounted to the ovens having been replaced at more than five years of operation and the dishwasher at more than five and a half years of operation.

[15]

CONCLUSIONS

Each of the parties conducted their cases on the basis of multiple claimed avenues for recovery. GFE relied centrally on the Preventative Maintenance Service Contract but did so on the several alternative bases with which I have dealt. Restaurant relied on the Sales Contract claiming that the agreement made 19 July 2017 was for acceptance only of preventative maintenance work at the specification in Option 1 of the 19 April 2017 quotation, but ultimately conceded the force of the proposition that there was a separate Preventative Maintenance Service Contract. It was apparent during the hearing that the central motivating dispute between the parties was anchored in their opposed positions - for GFE that the equipment was misused and for Restaurant that the equipment was defective or not fit for purpose. That dispute arose from the volume of call outs for servicing of the equipment. Taking their opposed positions on that central issue is what gave rise to the parties' dispute in their countervailing claims for payment of invoices. At the end of these reasons, in the course of which I have endeavoured to deal with the multitude of arguments and alternative arguments advanced between the parties, I have determined that very modest recovery has been won by each of them and only on the invoice claims.
I list my summary of conclusions as follows: 1. On 10 May 2015 the parties entered into the Sales Contract pursuant to which all of the equipment was supplied. 2. The Sales Contract provided for the sale and supply of commercial kitchen equipment to the 500 seat capacity restaurant known as Armani operated by Restaurant. 3. Much of but not all of the equipment sold under the Sales Contract was of the premium brand Angelo Po. 4. The parties joined in the Sales Contract on the basis of GFE's representation that the high end Angelo Po equipment was fit for the purpose of use in the restaurant. 5. The 5 year parts and labour warranty on Angelo Po equipment provided for in the Sales Contract included the express exclusions appearing in the GFE printed documentation as amended in handwriting. 6. The parties did not enter into any contract or legally binding arrangement for preventative maintenance servicing of the equipment until on 19 July 2017, when Restaurant accepted GFE's (revised) quotation dated 19 April 2017 for the provision of that service and thus the Preventative Maintenance Service Contract was then made. 7. Even if I am wrong in (6) above; whether on 19 July 2017 Restaurant accepted the whole of the terms of GFE's quotation of 19 April 2017 or made a counter offer for Option 1 scope of servicing only which was accepted by GFE on the delivery of preventative maintenance service; it was a separate and stand-alone contract for that servicing. 8. The Sales Contract 5 year warranty continued unaffected by the Preventative Maintenance Service Contract made two years later. 9. The term "Generally Consumable" amongst the exclusions to the five year Sales Contract warranty is properly construed to exclude components objectively to be understood by these commercial parties to be of life service performance dictating that it was reasonable to expect their periodic replacement within the 5 year term. 10. In the absence of expert opinion evidence, I am not persuaded to the balance of probabilities that the abnormally high call out for services and repairs of the equipment was because it was defective in some way or, not of acceptable quality, not fit for purpose or other than as represented by GFE, that being high end products suitable for use in the restaurant. 11. In the absence of expert opinion evidence, I am not persuaded that Restaurant misused the equipment causing the high call out for services and repairs. 12. The competing claims based on invoices are, as I have endeavoured to do, to be determined on the basis of the Sales Contract 5 year warranty.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (18 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (5)

Cases Cited (24)