1. Ms Li, the director of Global explained that the vehicle had been involved in an accident in January 2022.
2. Global obtained a quotation from Mocun for $22,000.00 to repair the vehicle and replace all necessary parts. Ms Li asserted that an amount of $11,000.00 would be paid as a deposit before the work commenced and the balance would be paid on receipt of a roadworthy certificate.
3. Ms Li stated that Mocun provided a list of the parts which were required to carry out the repair. Ms Li understood that all parts to be used would be genuine.
4. Ms Li claimed that the repair work was promised to be completed in one month.
5. The vehicle was delivered to Mocun on 6 February 2022. On 29 March 2022, Ms Li was advised that three additional parts were required to repair the drive shaft and that the cost of the additional parts would be added to the agreed price.
6. Ms Li was asked by Mocun to have a Mercedes dealer undertake diagnostic checks. Signals were displaying on the dashboard and there was an apparent problem with the rear camera. According to Ms Li, because Mocun did not have the equipment to test the rear camera issue, Mocun requested a dealership diagnosis be undertaken.
7. Global paid $7,000.00 to Mocun when the vehicle was removed from Mocun's workshop for the diagnostic check by the dealership mechanic. The payment was made in response to a request by Mocun.
8. Ms Li asserted that the dealership advised her that the vehicle was 'not right.'
9. According to Ms Li the dealership advised her that the problem which existed was not due to the rear camera issue.
10. An electrical check was not undertaken by Mocun. When the electrical check was conducted by the dealership mechanic certain issues were highlighted. According to Ms Li, Mocun indicated that it could rectify the issues referred to in the dealership check. Acting on this advice the vehicle was returned to Mocun.
11. Global asserted that Mocun's demand for payment of the $7,000.00 was not valid because the demand was not in accordance with the arrangement. A quotation had been provided which had been accepted. It was a fixed quotation. Two payments were required, the first, being a deposit, before any work was undertaken and the final payment when the work was completed.
12. When the dealership informed Ms Li that there was a problem with the vehicle, she took the vehicle to another mechanic being Motory in Clayton. The mechanic advised Ms Li that the vehicle would need to be "pulled apart" at a cost of $20,000.00. No written quotation for this estimated cost was produced in evidence. No written advice from Motory regarding the work required to be undertaken was produced in evidence. There was no recording submitted of this alleged advice.
13. Ms Li claimed that she had requested invoices for the parts supplied by Mocun. However, not all the requested invoices had been provided to Global. According to Ms Li the invoices seemed to relate to second-hand parts sourced from overseas suppliers.
14. After she removed the vehicle from Mocun and cancelled the agreement, a mechanic undertook a wheel alignment because the wheels were not straight.
15. Global had paid Mocun $18,000.00. Ms Li advised that Global could not afford to pay an additional $20,000.00 being the cost suggested by Motory to "pull apart" the vehicle.
16. Global sold the vehicle to a dealership for $70,000.00. Global received a net amount of $65,000.00. The dealership installed a new rear camera and seatbelts and "something else" which was required to get the vehicle "up to the market."
17. Global asserted that it had previously received an offer of $85,000 from a private buyer. This sale did not proceed. Ms Li said she had "multiple offers" from persons wanting to buy the vehicle. Ms Li stated that if the repairs had been completed in a timely manner, she would have been able to "do a deal" with the private buyer. She had taken a deposit of $500.00 on a sale price of $82,000.00 but because the repair had not been completed in a timely manner she refunded the deposit to the proposed buyer.
18. The vehicle was sold to a dealership without a roadworthy certificate for $70,000.00.
19. The dealership informed her that the parts installed by Mocun were faulty and not genuine. No documentary evidence to support this assertion was produced in evidence.
20. The wheels on the vehicle were out of alignment. Global asserted that a wheel alignment was part of the work to be conducted under the arrangement with Mocun.
21. Ms Li maintained that agreed quotation was for a fixed cost of $22,000.00 with $11,000.00 paid as a deposit and the balance to be paid on completion. Ms Li states that she was forced to pay $7,000.00 at the time she took the vehicle to the dealership to check the electricals.
22. Global claims $18,000.00[1] together with an amount of $3,326.95 which Global paid for wheel alignment and repairs by other mechanics. Global's claim is for a total amount of $21,326.95.
23. Ms Li referred to number of documents including We Chat conversations and videos to support her position. She did agree however that the additional amount of $1,123.00 for extra parts not seen by Mocun at the time of inspection would be paid by Global at the time when the final payment was paid. According to Ms Li the adjusted final payment would be $12,123.00.
24. Ms Li maintained that the seat-belt issue should have been identified at the time of the initial inspection.
25. Ms Li stated that there was also a yellow mark on the pillar and there was an internal gap in the driver's door. She said that Mocun agreed to rectify both matters but failed to do so.
26. As for the parts list from Mercedes produced by Mocun, Ms Li stated that she was unable to find everything on that list when compared with Mocun's parts invoice list contained in the quotation.
27. In support of Global's position Ms Li referred to the "We Chat" history excerpt from Motory stating the vehicle was not driveable. Reference was also made to various excerpts suggesting that the control arms had not been replaced. A video taken at Motory's premises was submitted as evidence that the wheel alignment issue had not been repaired. Under cross examination Ms Li said that the mechanic at Motory had agreed for the video to be taken
28. Ms Li suggested that the expert material to support her position was contained in the Motory invoice, the video at Motory's premises and the invoice from Silver Star which related to a battery issue and wheel studs.

1. Global stated that the vehicle was involved in a motor vehicle accident in January 2022. Prior to the accident the vehicle had undergone annual services[2]. No faults were detected in the course of those annual services.
2. The agreement with Mocun was to repair the vehicle and replace all damaged parts to such a standard to enable a road worthy certificate to be obtained.
3. In April 2022, the vehicle was collected by Global from Mocun's workshop to undergo a diagnostic check by a Mercedes dealership. There was a fault with the vehicle's computer which Mocun was unable to assess. Mocun did not have the machines or equipment to conduct the diagnostic test and suggested to Ms Li that she take the vehicle to a dealer for diagnostic testing. At the time the vehicle was collected for diagnostic testing Ms Li considered that all parts had been fitted to the vehicle.
4. Prior to removal of the vehicle from Mocun's workshop for dealership testing Mocun requested $7,000.00 from Global which was paid. Ms Li claimed that Mocun told her that if further repairs were identified in the diagnostic report which could not be carried out by Mocun the work would need to be undertaken by a dealership with cost of such further repair work to be deducted (set-off) from the balance owing to Mocun.
5. Ms Li thought the work would be carried out for no extra costs, but then Mocun advised her there would be extra charges.
6. Ms Li explained that she felt cheated because Mocun wanted payment of $7,000.00 to release the vehicle from the workshop for diagnostic testing to be undertaken.
7. It is Global's position that based on information received from two mechanics the vehicle had major issues with the suspension. The issues were that the suspension had not been properly adjusted, and the damaged components in the suspension had not been replaced but instead had been poorly repaired.
8. Global's position was that the quote was an "all-in" figure and there was to be no extra cost.
9. Ms Li on behalf of Global was seeking "fairness" under Global's consumer rights. She stated it was a matter for the Tribunal to determine whether she obtained a refund of all or part of the amount Global paid to Mocun.
10. Ms Li confirmed that Global sold the vehicle to a dealership without a road worthy certificate.

1. The evidence on behalf of Mocun was provided by the director Ms Wang and the manager Mr Jing.
2. Ms Wang submitted that as the vehicle was no longer owned by Global. On that basis she considered that Global was unable to obtain a refund.
3. Ms Wang referred to the We Chat history and claimed that the damaged parts have been fixed. She maintained that Mocun had provided invoices for the parts purchased by Mocun.
4. Ms Wang suggested that the We Chat history contradicts the evidence given by Ms Li.
5. Ms Wang stated that no expert evidence had been provided by Global to Mocun to prove that the repairs were defective. Global could have taken the vehicle to an expert to prepare a report regarding the repairs but did not do so.
6. Ms Wang referred to a "reference" quotation obtained from Mercedes Benz Brighton dated 15 July 2022, after the commencement of Global's proceeding, for an amount of $29,321.55. It is a parts only quotation.
7. She claims that the vehicle had previous issues which were not disclosed by Global at the time of inspection.
8. The figure of $22,000.00 provided to Global at the time of the inspection was an estimation only because the vehicle was unable to be driven.
9. The drive shaft issue could not be detected when the vehicle was inspected in Ms Li's driveway. It could only be found on further inspection.
10. Ms Wang conceded that Mocun agreed to pay the cost of the Mercedes dealership to check the rear camera issue. She stated that the checking of the rear camera fault was important.
11. Global removed the vehicle from Mocun's workshop before the vehicle was fully repaired.
12. Mr Jing stated that he had been introduced to Ms Li through an acquaintance who he trusts. He checked the condition of the vehicle in the driveway of Ms Li's home. He formed the view that the condition of the damaged vehicle was "really bad." He tried to help Global as best he could. As the required parts were expensive, he would use his best endeavours to source the parts at a reasonable cost. He maintained that Global had agreed that Mocun could source second-hand parts in order to control the repair costs.
13. The figure of $22,000.00 he provided to fix the vehicle was an estimation. The estimation was for visible damage. According to Mr Jing he advised Ms Li that he needed time to do the repairs because the vehicle was badly damaged.
14. Mr Jing asserted that Ms Li told him that the vehicle was driveable. However, it was not.
15. Once the vehicle was in Mocun's workshop parts needed to be sourced locally and from USA and Europe.
16. Mocun provided Global with a loan vehicle to drive. A rental fee was to be paid. Mr Jing said that in a conversation Ms Li had agreed on a loan car fee of $10.00 per day. He said Ms Li had the loan car for "around" two months and that the loan car fee owed was "roughly" $500.00.
17. During a test drive of the vehicle Mr Jing discovered that the drive shaft had been damaged. A replacement was required. He was able to find a second-hand part.
18. Mr Jing referred to the We Chat history which, he said, contained conversations proving that he was advising Ms Li of the processes and steps to be undertaken.
19. By Easter 2022, the work had progressed but was incomplete. Mr Jing discovered that the rear camera was not working and (warning) "lights" were displaying on the dashboard. He informed Ms Li that he did not have the necessary diagnostic equipment for this problem and that she should take the vehicle to a Mercedes dealership to check the rear camera. He said that he agreed to pay Global $300.00 for a Mercedes dealership to check the vehicle and to complete a report. He acknowledged that he received an invoice from Silver Star Mercedes dealership. He claimed that the invoice does not show that the rear camera was checked.
20. After Easter 2022, Mr Jing informed Ms Li that if the dealership was unable to diagnose the problem, he would assist.
21. He stated that the vehicle part list he provided Global as an estimate did not include a rear camera because this is something which he discovered later. Mr Jing advised Ms Li that Global would have to pay the costs associated with the rear camera.
22. Mr Jing explained that the vehicle is controlled by a computer and that the rear camera was part of that computer.
23. He required the vehicle tested by a Mercedes dealership to ascertain why the lights were displaying on the dashboard and why the rear camera was not working. He requested Ms Li to take the vehicle to a Mercedes dealer to have diagnostic tests undertaken. Once the diagnostic test was received Mocun would then be able to complete the work. Mr Jing maintained that whilst the dashboard lights were displaying it was not possible to complete other works. Mr Jing claimed that the rear camera problem was critical.
24. Mr Jing stated that Mocun had not finished the work. Mocun had purchased parts which had not been installed.
25. Mr Jing said that some of the receipts for some of the parts were from Gumtree and online suppliers. Under cross examination he confirmed that he had paid for all the parts.
26. Mr Jing stated that the vehicle had damaged suspension. Every damaged part in the suspension was changed.
27. In relation to the extra parts for the driveshaft he said that Global had agreed to pay for those extra parts.
28. When cross examined as to why the signals were displaying on the dashboard, he stated that this was the work on the vehicle was not finished. He explained that in this vehicle is fitted with a lane keeping system which meant that if one camera is unable to operate then the lane keeping system would not work.
29. Mr Jing stated that he recommended Ms Li take the vehicle home over the Easter period for security purposes and that she should take the vehicle to a Mercedes dealership for a diagnostic test. According to Mr Jing at Easter 2022 the work was incomplete.
30. He admitted that not all the parts had been installed into the vehicle because he needed to be sure that the computer was working. When the computer was working properly the remaining parts could then be installed in the vehicle.
31. He said Mocun was not given the chance to complete the work because Global removed the vehicle from his workshop and cancelled the arrangement.
32. According to Mr Jing the work to be completed included adjusting the computer, seat-belt installation, lower control arm installation and wheel alignment.
33. Ms Li decided to collect the vehicle from his workshop, thereby ending the agreement. Mr Jing wanted the balance owed to Mocun before releasing the vehicle. Ms Li arrived at the workshop and a disagreement occurred which culminated in Police attendance. The vehicle was removed from Mocun's workshop without payment of the balance.
34. In response to a question as to why all the parts appearing on the "reference" quotation from Mercedes Benz Brighton were not included on the parts list provided by Mocun to Global, Mr Jing explained that the quotation from Mercedes Benz Brighton postdated Mocun's list of parts and had been obtained after the proceedings had commenced. He said he advised Mercedes Benz Brighton of all the parts removed and replaced.

1. Mr Jing stated that it was Mocun's philosophy that if someone needs help, Mocun will endeavour to help them by finding ways to save money.
2. Mocun prepared a list of parts required and stated that if further required parts were not on the list, then he expected Global to pay for those additional parts.
3. Mocun stated that the rear camera was not working. He was unaware of this factor at the time of inspection.
4. He maintained that Global agreed to pay for the parts whether they were second hand or new. There was no agreement that the parts to be used in the repair would be new or genuine.
5. Mr Jing acknowledged that Global had paid $18,000.00. He said Global cancelled the contract and removed the vehicle without fully paying the costs. He says the amount of $4,000.00 relating to the original amount of $22,000.00 remains unpaid. Mocun claims the unpaid amount of $4,000.00 plus $1,123.00 for the agreed additional parts for the driveshaft plus $500.00 for the rental of the loan vehicle. Mr Jing stated that without the driveshaft the vehicle was incapable of being driven, meaning the driveshaft costs were essential.

1. The Tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear and determine claims concerning certain disputes under the Australian Consumer Law and Fair Trading Act 2012 (Vic) ('ACLFT Act'). By section 184(1) of the ACLFT Act jurisdiction is conferred on the Tribunal to hear and determine a 'consumer and trader dispute', which is defined to mean, a dispute arising between a purchaser and a supplier of goods or services in relation to a supply of goods or services.[3]
2. Mocun is a supplier of goods or services and Global is a consumer. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear and determine this proceeding therefore exists.

1. Both parties referred to the We-Chat history to support various aspects of their respective positions.
2. The history comprises 262 pages. Whilst the content of the history provides background, not every entry in the history is relevant to my determination. I do not intend to repeat every entry in that history.
3. Rather, I have distilled the following matters as relevant to this determination:

(a) Global was not concerned whether the parts used were second-hand or new;[4]

(b) Mocun provided, at the request, of Global a list of the main items to be replaced;[5]

(c) Global indicated to Global to "take your time" and agreed to "wait patiently";[6]

(d) By 10 March 2022, the suspension was "fixed";[7]

(e) There was a delay in delivery of the air-bag, which finally arrived on 25 March 2022;

(f) Mocun discovered that the front wheel drive shaft was damaged, and two seat belts required replacement;[8]

(g) It was apparent, after these further repair issues were uncovered, that Global had budgetary constraints and Mocun indicated that second hand parts would be sourced "to make it work";[9]

(h) Global agreed to add the rental fee for the loan vehicle and the cost for the extra parts to the final payment;[10]

(i) When the vehicle was test driven a battery issue and positioning beam issue was discovered;[11]

(j) Mocun was concerned for the security of the vehicle if it were to remain at the workshop over the easter holiday break;

(k) Global expresses thanks for Mocun's "hard work";[12]

(l) Mocun discovered an issue with the rear camera and suggested the vehicle be taken to a Mercedes dealer for diagnostic testing;[13]

(m) Mocun advises that the cost of such diagnosis would be borne by Mocun;

(n) Mocun seeks $7,000.00 from Global before the vehicle is removed from Mocun's workshop to be taken to the dealer for diagnostic testing;

(o) Global agrees that the balance is $10,000.00 plus GST plus $1,123.00 and will pay $7,000.00 when the vehicle is collected;[14]

(p) Mocun advises Global that the cost of the battery will be Global's responsibility;[15]

(q) Global highlights a number of issues being, rear seat belt, front seat belt, reversing camera image, gap between panel and doors, lane keeping system not functioning, gaps in console, front-sensor operating intermittently and light on the dash console displaying;[16]

(r) Global terminates the agreement.[17]

Mercedes - Benz Burwood - Silver star invoice.

1. The invoice contains charges for electrical of $263.00, key- battery replacement and a missing wheel nut.
2. The copy invoice is incomplete. I presume GST is to be added onto the amount charged for each item.
3. The replacement of key battery is not relevant to the contract.
4. As for the wheel nut required replacement, it was a matter not included in the parts list and in any event the work was incomplete at the time of the cancellation of the agreement.
5. Insofar as this invoice is relevant it seems that a charge of $289.30 (inclusive of GST) has been incurred for the electrical diagnostics.

1. Global relies on these two items as evidence that the work carried out by Mocun was incomplete and/or defective.
2. The invoice dated 29 June 2022 includes charges for a control arm fix, wheel alignment, computer re-set and rear camera.
3. The wheel alignment was part of the agreement. I accept Mocun's evidence that the work was incomplete and that the wheel alignment was to be undertaken by Mocun. The fee in the invoice for a wheel alignment was a charge which would have been incurred by Global had Mocun completed the work under the agreement. In such circumstances this charge cannot be claimed against Mocun.
4. The charge for the control arm fix would seem to be the only aspect of this invoice of relevance.
5. The video was taken by Ms Li at a workshop. It is not clear from the video as to whether it is the workshop of Motory. It is also not clear as to whether the mechanic was aware the video was being made or whether he was aware that the video would be produced in evidence in this proceeding.
6. Global did not call the mechanic from Motory to give evidence. No written expert's report from a mechanic of Motory was tendered. The only document produced was the invoice.
7. The video has captions which translate the language spoken by the mechanic into English. I cannot be sure that the translation is accurate. However, on viewing the video there is a suggestion the rear control arm has not been installed and that the wheels appear to be "slanted" and "a bit out of shape". Propositions are advanced as to why this may be. The recommendation of the mechanic seems to be that this aspect should be checked by an entity referred to as "4S" (which I presume is a Mercedes Benz dealership).
8. Without a report and without the mechanic attending the hearing to provide evidence I find the video to be of little probative value. I am unable to accept it as evidence that the rear control arm had not been installed and that there was an issue that the wheels were either "slanted" or out of shape.
9. The list of items provided by Mocun to Global includes a right-hand lower control arm and a right-hand upper control arm. There is no material which assists me to understand what a rear control arm might be.
10. In his evidence Mr Jing of Mocun advised that the lower control arm had not yet been installed by him prior to the termination of the agreement. I accept his evidence.
11. It follows therefore, that the upper control arm had been installed. The lower control arm had not been installed. Evidence provided by Mocun includes a series of text exchanges between Mocun and a supplier, MBParts, on 24 February 2022 and 8 April 2022 to the effect that the right lower control arm had been purchased by Mocun for $350.00 cash. I accept this evidence.
12. The Motory invoice makes no reference to the installation of a control arm nor any work to straighten the wheels. The invoice does record a charge for a wheel alignment. I assume therefore that the wheel alignment remedied the issue with the "slanted" or "out of shape" wheels referred to in the video because the invoice makes no reference to any other work performed to correct the alleged wheels issue.
13. In paragraph 99 I observed that the only relevant aspect of the Motory invoice was the control arm fix. It is not clear whether the repair was to the right upper or lower control arm. If the repairs were undertaken to the upper control arm, then perhaps the "fix" charge could be considered as evidence of a defective part. If the repair was to the lower control arm, then given the fact that the lower control arm was yet to be installed this charge may be regarded as work which would have been performed had the agreement not ended, and, in this regard would be similar to the wheel alignment consideration referred to in paragraph 98.
14. The Motory invoice is unclear. It does not particularise which control arm was "fixed." The description of work in the Motory invoice is open to two equally plausible interpretations, namely that the upper control arm installed by Mocun required "fixing" or that the accident damaged lower control arm (which was yet to be installed by Mocun) required "fixing". Another confusing aspect in relation to the control arm is that in the video the mechanic from Motory refers to a "rear" control arm.
15. I am not satisfied that the invoice from Motory is evidence of defective workmanship because the invoice is unclear. The fact that the Motory invoice is open to an interpretation that the upper control arm is the control arm which required "fixing", without further information, is not enough to prove defective workmanship.

Mocun's Mercedes Benz Brighton parts quotation.

1. Mocun tendered in evidence a "reference" quotation from Mercedes Benz Brighton in relation to parts. There is evidence that Mercedes Benz Brighton supplied some of the required parts, but not all the parts referred to on Mocun's list of parts.
2. I presume the purpose of providing such a document was to establish that the estimate put forward by Mocun was fair and reasonable.
3. There has been no allegation made by Global that the agreed sum was excessive. The Mercedes Benz Brighton quotation has no relevance to the dispute between the parties.
4. The dispute raised by Global relates to whether the work was carried out and whether the work was carried out properly. The dispute was not whether the cost agreed was excessive. The reference quotation from Mercedes Benz Brighton is therefore disregarded.

1. An agreement was made between Global and Mocun on 6 February 2022 when Mocun paid the deposit of $11,000.00. The terms of that agreement are evidenced in the We Chat history.[18]
2. Mocun inspected the vehicle in Ms Li's driveway and provided an estimate of $22,000.00 to complete the work to bring the accident damaged vehicle to a road worthy condition.
3. The original terms of the agreement were that an amount of $11,000.00 would be paid by way of deposit with the balance payable when a road worthy certificate was received.
4. In course of repair being carried out the terms of the agreement were varied. Such a variation is not unusual outcome in the circumstances of a damaged vehicle undergoing repair. Often times further items of repair are discovered as work progresses. Such was the case in this matter. An extra repair item concerning the drive shaft was identified at a cost of $1,123.00. It is clear from the We Chat history that Global agreed to pay this additional amount.[19] Furthermore in her evidence Ms Li acknowledged that the sum of $1,123.00 for the driveshaft would be paid as part of the agreement.
5. The time for payment of the balance of the agreed price was also varied. It was necessary for the vehicle to be taken to a Mercedes Benz dealership for diagnostic purposes. I am satisfied that the agreement was varied to require payment of $7,000.00 prior to the removal of the vehicle from Mocun's workshop for diagnostic testing purposes. The We Chat history confirms that this amount would be paid and proof of payment of the $7,000.00 by Global is contained in the We Chat history. There was also confirmation by Ms Li that the balance including the drive shaft payment of $1,123.00 was due when the work was completed.
6. Global had the use of a loan vehicle. The cost of the vehicle hire is claimed by Mocun in the amount of $500.00. The We Chat history contains an acknowledgement by Global of liability for vehicle loan rental. The argument seems to revolve around the quantum of the hire fee.
7. Whilst Global asserted that the works were required to be completed within a month, I do not accept that the agreement had any time limits or deadline. Global had a potential buyer for the vehicle but the existence of that potential buyer and the need to deliver the roadworthy vehicle by a certain time was not part of the agreement. Global may have felt pressure to have the work completed to enable the potential sale to be finalised, but I find that the completion to meet this potential sale was never part of the agreement. It is clear from the We Chat history that Global was prepared to wait and suggested to Mocun to take its time. Global understood that parts needed to be sourced locally and from overseas.
8. I do not accept that it was part of the agreement that all parts installed would be new. The We Chat history is evidence of the fact that Global was content for second hand parts to be used in the repair of the vehicle.
9. In summary the varied agreement was for a total sum of $23,123.00. An amount of $11,000.00 was to be paid as a deposit with a further amount of $7,000.00 to be paid when the vehicle was collected for diagnostic purposes. The balance remaining to be paid under the agreement was $5,123.00. This amount remained unpaid at the time the agreement was terminated by Global.

1. As the applicant in its claim Global must prove its position.
2. Global seeks to recover all monies paid to Mocun being $18,000.00 plus the amount of $3,326.95.
3. During the hearing Ms Li indicated that it was a matter for the Tribunal to determine whether Global received any refund.
4. To succeed with its claim Global must establish on the balance of probabilities that the work carried out by Mocun was of no value or contained defects requiring rectification.
5. I am satisfied that Mocun has substantially completed the work. I am also satisfied that further work was required to ensure the vehicle achieved a roadworthy certificate. Such further work would have included a wheel alignment, installation of seatbelts, installation of a right-hand lower control arm and rear camera rectification.
6. Global has failed to prove that the work was of no value. No evidence of substantial expense[20] to rectify alleged defective issues was provided by Global. The vehicle was sold to a dealer. Presumably, the dealer conducted a thorough inspection before agreeing to pay $70,000.00. The only proof of the expenses incurred are contained in the invoices of Mercedes Benz Burwood and Motory.
7. The whole amounts of those respective invoices are not recoverable by Global. In paragraph 95 I found that the only relevant part of the Mercedes Benz Burwood invoice was the charge associated with the diagnostic investigation which I have determined was $289.30. The remaining items on the invoice are not relevant to the agreement between the parties for the reasons outlined above.[21] It is clear to me that Mocun was always prepared to reimburse the cost of diagnostics and should do so.
8. No mechanic from Motory attended the hearing. Nevertheless, Global submits the invoice of Motory as evidence of defective workmanship. I observed in paragraph 99 that the only component of this invoice which may be of relevance is that part concerning the repairs to the control arm. Global has failed to provide adequate evidence concerning the "fix" to the control arm. As stated in paragraph 109 it is unclear from that invoice which control arm was "fixed". Without further information there are two equally persuasive interpretations. One of two interpretations is not enough. Global must prove its position on the balance of possibilities and has not done so.
9. For the reasons outlined above in respect of its claim Global is entitled to $289.30 from Mocun.

1. Putting aside the issuing fee, the balance of the amount claimed by Mocun is $5,623.00. This amount is calculated as set out in paragraph 85 being the unpaid amount of $4,000.00 plus $1,123.00 for the agreed additional parts for the driveshaft plus an amount $500.00 for the rental of the loan vehicle.
2. Similarly to Global, Mocun must prove its claim on the balance of probabilities.
3. In relation to the claim for the balance of $4,000.00 which is alleged to be due under the agreement, Mocun has failed to establish a loss in this amount. Whilst it is true that had the work under the agreement been completed the amount of $4,000.00 would have been due to Mocun, the agreement was terminated by Global before the work was completed. Where termination of an agreement occurs prior to completion, the party who does not terminate the agreement may be entitled to be receive compensation.
4. For the reasons which follow I find that Mocun is not entitled to the amount of $4,000.00 unpaid under the agreement as compensation for termination. Instead, Mocun may be entitled to the profit or net loss arising because of the termination of the agreement. No evidence was provided concerning the profit which may have been lost because of the early termination of the agreement by Global. The work, whilst substantially completed was not fully completed. Without further evidence there is no automatic entitlement to the balance of $4,000.00. In the absence of such evidence Mocun has failed to prove this aspect of its claim and, consequently, this component of Mocun's claim is dismissed. I observe that Mocun may have purchased parts which were to be installed in the vehicle[22] however, the recovery of these expenses was not raised by Mocun. In any event I would have thought that any unused parts could have been returned to the supplier for refund or even resold.
5. The claim for $1,123.00 relates to the drive shaft. The We Chat history is quite clear that Global accepted liability for this amount and Ms Li acknowledged liability for these extra parts in her evidence. I am satisfied that the drive shaft was installed in the vehicle. I accept the evidence of Global that without a functioning drive shaft the vehicle was not capable of being driven. As I observed in paragraph 118 this component of Mocun's claim is a variation to the original agreement, and because the drive shaft was purchased by Mocun and agreed to be reimbursed by Global it is appropriate that Global pay the amount of $1,123.00.
6. The remaining component of Mocun's claim relates to the rental fee for the loan vehicle in the sum of $500.00. There is an acknowledgement in the We Chat history by Ms Li on behalf of Global that payment of the rental for the line vehicle was a separate liability. In short, Ms Li expected there to be a charge. The issue between the parties seems to be the amount.
7. Mr Jing says a daily fee of $10.00 was agreed in a conversation with Ms Li. There was no cross examination nor contrary position put regarding this assertion. I accept Mr Jing's evidence in respect to the quantum of the car loan fee.
8. In paragraph 121 I determined that there was no time limit for the completion of the work and accordingly it is fair and appropriate for a rental amount to be charged to Global for the period from the date of delivery of the vehicle to Mocun to the date the vehicle was removed on 19 April 2022. On my calculation the number of days exceed sixty. Mocun seeks $500.00 as loan car hire fee. I consider this amount to be reasonable.
9. For the reasons outlined the amount to be paid by Global to Mocun is $1,623.00.

1. Mocun must pay Global $289.30. Global must pay Mocun $1,623.00 and the sum of $289.30 which is to be paid by Mocun to Global must be set off. The net result is that Global must pay Mocun $1,333.70.
2. Neither party has substantially succeeded with its claim. Global has obtained an order in its favour of an extremely small amount which has been set off. Mocun has obtained an order which is less than 30% of its claim. Consequently, there will be no order regarding reimbursement of any fees in either proceeding.

[1] Being the amount paid by Global to Mocun.

[2] There was a brief service history print out provided by Global for 2019, 2020 and 2021 pre-dating the accident in January 2022.

1. [20] According to Global an amount of $20,000.00 was required to rectify the work.

[22] Such as seat belts and the lower control arm.