Green Vision Group Pty Ltd ACN: 608313542 trading as Green Vision Solar

Goedemans v Green Vision Group Pty Ltd (Civil Claims) [2025] VCAT 533

1. Green Vision Group Pty Ltd ACN: 608313542 must pay Matthew Goedemans and Nicole Stewart the sum of $14,900.00.
2. On payment of $14,900.00 in accordance with order 1 Green Vision Group Pty Ltd ACN: 608313542 may collect the Sonnen Hybrid 9.53/2.5 (2.5Kwh/ 2.25Wh usable) battery at a mutually agreed time during business hours from Matthew Goedemans and Nicole Stewart's premises at 545 Sheep Station Creek Road Hoddles Creek, Victoria.
3. Pursuant to section 115B of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 Green Vision Group Pty Ltd ACN: 608313542 must pay Matthew Goedemans and Nicole Stewart the VCAT application fee of $233.70

1. This is a claim by Mr Goedemans and Ms Stewart against Green Vision Group Pty Ltd trading as Green Vision Solar ('GVS') for a refund of money paid for a solar battery in the amount of $14,900.00. The legal basis for the claim is that the goods were not fit for the purpose disclosed by the applicants, Mr Goedemans and Ms Stewart, to the supplier/seller, GVS.
2. Mr Goedemans and Ms Stewart made application to VCAT on 21 January 2024 and GVS filed Points of Defence disputing liability.
3. The hearing proceeded by videoconference on 3 December 2024 and 8 April 2025 and Mr Goedemans and Ms Stewart attended, and each gave evidence and Mr Daniel Carydias, Director of GVS and Mr Oscar Devenish, Sales Manager of GVS attended and each gave evidence.
4. I gave oral reasons for my decision on 8 April 2025 and GVS have requested written reasons for my decision. The following is my written record of my oral reasons with some editorial amendments to ensure my reasons are clearly explained.
5. Both parties filed a considerable amount of material in support of their respective claims, and I have taken into account any material relied on where relevant in my reasons.

1. Mr Goedemans and Ms Stewart gave evidence that they live on a rural property in Hoddles Creek that relies on tank water. That after severe storms in June 2021 they lost power and without power they could not run water from the tank via their electrical pumps. Ms Stewart said they had been using a generator for electricity when there is a power blackout, but they decided due to the high cost of using a generator to get a quote for solar power with battery backup that would operate in the event of another blackout. After researching solar electricity suppliers on the internet Ms Stewart said she telephoned GVS and spoke to Mr Devenish a number of times to discuss their needs prior to signing a contract with GVS on 4 November 2021. Ms Stewart said she knew nothing about solar power or battery back-up systems and was relying on the expertise and advice of Mr Devenish as to what she needed.
2. Ms Stewart said she was clear in explaining to Mr Devenish that she required a rooftop solar system including a battery to supply backup electricity during blackouts. She said she explained to Mr Devenish that she required the battery for the purpose of running the house in the event of a blackout including in particular powering the pumps for the water tanks, flushing toilets, drinking water, showers, and heating but also power for the fridge,

lights and other appliances. Ms Stewart said she was very clear about the need and purpose due to the lengthy blackout that occurred in the Dandenong Ranges during the severe storms in June 2021 and the fact that they live on a rural property that endures many blackouts. She said she explained to Mr Devenish that without power they cannot run the water pump and that they have no mains water and they are solely reliant on their water tanks for water.

1. Ms Stewart said Mr Devenish advised they had three options regarding the brand of battery to purchase, a Sonnen battery, an LG battery or a Tesla battery. She said Mr Devenish did not recommend the LG battery because he said it has been reported to have defects which causes it to set fire. Ms Stewart said they decided to purchase the Sonnen battery because it was cheaper than the Tesla battery. However, Ms Stewart said Mr Devenish did not recommend either battery or say whether one was better than the other. She said Mr Devenish advised that the Sonnen battery would provide the power needed for the water pumps easily in the event of a black out.
2. Ms Stewart said she did not advise Mr Devenish how many pumps were used or the amperage of any of the pumps because she wasn't asked, and she said she didn't know that information at the time. Ms Stewart said if she was asked by Mr Devenish, she would have had to check each pump because she did not have any knowledge at the time about the electrical outputs of the pumps or any of the electrical things used on the property. She said she was relying on Mr Devenish's expertise to ask her any relevant questions like this because she had no knowledge of what information may be relevant. She said she made it very clear however, that it was essential she get a system that would have the capacity to power the pumps, appliances and electricity.
3. Ms Stewart said they received a quote from GVS to install a rooftop solar system and a copy of this quote was provided to the Tribunal. Ms Stewart said the quote included under the heading "description" supply of a Sonnen

Hybrid 9.53/2/5 (2.5kwh/ 2.25kwh usable) and the quantity of batteries to be supplied is "5". Ms Stewart said also included in the description of things to be suppled was "Black out protection". The quoted cost was $25,200 after deduction of STCs and solar PV rebate. The quote was signed by Mr Goedemans and Ms Stewart on 11 April 2021. She said the quote does not itemise the cost of the five batteries, but the cost of the batteries was itemised within the contract to be $14,900.00 and GVS does not dispute this price.

1. Ms Stewart said the system was installed by WM Solar and Electrical

('WM') on behalf of SVG on 19 November 2021. A quote from WM dated 4 November 2021 directed to Daniel Carydias, Green Vision was provided to the Tribunal totalling $6,171.00 including GST.

1. Ms Stewart said the battery was not fit for purpose because it did not have the capacity to pump the water needed from the water tank in the event of a black out. She said the applicants have experienced at least six to seven blackouts since the battery was installed on 19 November 2021 and the battery has failed to work during every blackout, the first occasion being on

1. Ms Stewart provided a timeline of events since installation of the battery. Ms Stewart provided numerous copies of email correspondence with GVS and

with the battery manufacturer Sonnen and with the electrician installers, WM whereby she gave notice to each of them that the battery is not working, and they are without power. Ms Stewart said it was very stressful because each time there was a black out, they had no power or water which was impacting them financially because food perished, and they had to start using the generator again to gain power.

1. Ms Stewart said there was an additional two defects with the battery. She said the first defect was that the battery was slowly losing charge and could not be recharged even when using the manual recharging function. She said the second defect was that the battery was shutting down without any load. Ms Stewart said these ongoing faults were reported to GVS each time it happened and each time it was reported after long delays somebody would attend the property to inspect the battery and would advise her the problem has been fixed. However, Ms Stewart said each time the problem was not fixed. Ms Stewart provided copies of correspondence notifying the problem and the responses from GVS for various dates from 7 November 2021 to most recently on 4 October 2023 when a new inverter was installed which she was told was the cause of the battery shutting down. However, Ms Stewart said soon after the inverter was installed the battery shut down again and on 18 November 2023 a representative of Sonnen responded and advised a technician will attend Friday to assess the issue she raised.
2. Ms Stewart and Mr Goedemans rely on evidence from Sonnen and the installers WM in support of their claims that the battery is not fit for purpose. Ms Stewart provided the Tribunal with an email dated 17 August 2023 from Craig Johnson, Customer service and support manager, National Safety officer, Sonnen batteries which states:

Please see the below report that I have compiled from feedback from my Field Service Coordinator and the service technician that we contracted to attend your home and investigate the issue you have raised. During the service visit on 14th found that the sonnen protect had been modified. The internal 10A breaker was replaced with a 25A Breaker. It was reported that this 10A breaker was tripping, sonnen assumes that the breaker changed to avoid continual tripping.

The issue that this has caused is that in a power outage our system can provide a max output of 2500W which is 10A through the sonnen protect.

The service technician found that on the Sonnen protect. It appears there are too many loads connected. It was reported that there are three water pumps, The kitchen circuit and some lights connected. The pumps traditionally have very high startup current rates, this means that one pump can trip the backup circuit as the start-up current is greater than the 2500W for too long during start-up causing the tripping

as kitchen circuits can include items like kettles and dishwashers. This only adds to the capacity wired into the project, meaning that in total, the loads wired into your system exceed the capacity.

As discussed, the sonnen 9.53 system you have at your home is a battery storage system. It will store energy from your solar panels to be used when required. The conversations that you had with the service technician, and I indicate that the requirements for your home currently exceed the system's capacity. Systems need to be designed with the owner's requirements taken into consideration; therefore, we recommend verifying what is exactly connected and reduced to loads from the project and/or have the design of system verified to see if your requirements are suitable for the 9.53's output.

1. Ms Stewart said after receiving this advice she and Mr Goedemans decided to disconnect the battery to the pumps to avoid overloading the battery and losing power during any power blackout.
2. Ms Stewart said that when the electrician from WM installed the system in 2021 the solar and battery system was connected to all possible power needs including the water pumps. She said nobody advised her that the system cannot be connected to the water pumps, lights or appliances including the fridge. That nobody raised any red flags. Ms Stewart said every power source was connected to the battery, but nothing worked when there was a blackout.
3. Ms Stewart also relied on an email from Mr Aaron McKenzie, an electrician and the Director of WM who sent an email on 27 September 2023 to Mr Goedemans stating the following:

We received a job sheet on the 29 October 2021 with site photos, which we assumed were from a site visit that they had performed. At no stage did green vision request us to carry out a site visit or involved in the selection of the products sold to you to fit your specific requirements.

The only note on the jobs sheet was that the site had two phases, there was no mention of the water pump. After sending quote for install to green vision I noted on photos that there was a generator changeover switch. Sent updated quote to green vision on 4 November 2021 to move the changeover switch into house switchboard to make install compliant in regard to solar. The first we knew of water pumps and that it was required to be on backup circuit was when we were wiring switchboard backup circuits on 9 November 2021. Backup usually consists of lighting, Wi-Fi, fridges and freezers so it was a surprise when you said this was the main reason for backup. We wired and tested water pump on back up several times during commissioning and at the time worked.. we tested system multiple times as the system that was sold is not really fit for the type of load and should not have been the system that was sold to you from green vision in our opinion.

1. Ms Stewart said that GVS never carried out a site visit and the quote was prepared based on phone conversations with Mr Devenish.
2. Ms Stewart referred the Tribunal to an email from Mr Carydias to Ms Stewart and Mr Goedemeans sent 3 October 2023 wherein Mr Carydias states that:

We all agree your PV system and battery are working and operational; however, the issue lies within the battery operation during a blackout (which you have advised is unfortunately fairly common in your area).

The backup issue is due to your existing water pump exceeding the batteries backup limitations. When the pump starts up when you are "off-grid" it requires more power than is available causing the battery to trip and shut off leaving you without power. we previously agreed that a solution would be to replace the water pump with one that requires less power on startup, staying within the backup circuits limitations to ensure proper operation during blackouts. We offered to cover the cost of electrical and plumbing work with you supplying the new water pump however you declined this arrangement.

1. Ms Stewart said that since the water pump was disconnected from the system, they continue to have the problems with the operation of the battery in that it does not work to provide power for lighting and appliances during a black out. Despite replacement of a faulty circuit breaker and inverter in about November 2024, Ms Stewart says after three years the battery still discharges in a blackout overnight and will not reset and turn back on until the grid power is restored leaving them with no power and the only option now is to replace the battery.
2. Ms Stewart said having obtained some quotes the cost of replacing the battery with a battery that has adequate capacity to run all power sources including the water pumps will be approximately $15,000.00 for a Victron brand battery not including installation costs. Mr Goedemans said they also spoke to their neighbours who have similar power needs and that the Victron battery brand was fit for purpose. Ms Stewart said therefore the claim for a refund of the cost of the existing battery will almost cover the cost of obtaining a suitable replacement battery, but they will cover installation costs.
3. Mr Goedemans and Ms Stewart seek a refund of the purchase price totalling

$14,900.00 on the grounds that the batteries were never fit for the purpose and the issue cannot be resolved other than by GVS offering to replace the water pump.

1. Mr Carydias said the information contained in the points of defence provided are true and correct.
2. To summarise GVS points of defence, GVS defends the claim on the basis that the solar electrical system including the battery was installed in

accordance with Mr Goldemans' and Ms Stewart's requirements after three months of discussion regarding their requirements which included nine alterations, and the applicants signed the contract on 4 November 2021. That Mr Goedemans and Ms Stewart did not seek to withdraw or cancel the contract before installation was carried out. That the system was correctly installed by WM on 19 November 2021 who are qualified electricians and that their work was inspected and certified with a certificate of compliance by a third-party inspector on 2 December 2021; and that GVS never received any complaints about the system at the time of installation. That GVS were first notified that the system was tripping on 29 January 2022 and arranged

for WM to attend and investigate the problem. An invoice from WM was provided to the Tribunal.

1. GVS denies all the allegations contained in the applicants points of claim and claimed the allegations are fictitious in an attempt to break any contractual obligations signed to receive free equipment in lieu of equipment that is fit for purpose.
2. GVS also states that the applicants have a service warranty but they have refused to allow GVS on site to rectify the issues raised. Mr Goedemans and Ms Stewart denied this claim.
3. Mr Carydias agreed that the Sonnen battery installed does not have capacity to operate the water pumps. However, he said he offered to replace the water pump at no cost for labour provided the applicants paid for the cost of the pump which he quoted at $700.00. Mr Goedemans said they did not accept the offer because it was not a reasonable offer. He explained this is because the pump replacement would reduce the current water pump capacity significantly regarding their water use needs, including for showering and heating.
4. Mr Carydias asked Ms Stewart whether she ever told GVS if they needed the battery back-up to pump water which she stated she definitely had done so repeating her earlier evidence regarding information she said she had given to Mr Devenish by telephone before accepting the quote from GVS. Mr Carydias asked whether Ms Stewart had advised Mr Devenish any details regarding the water pumps, such as the amperage, or quantity and Ms Stewart said she did not because she was relying on Mr Devenish to ask any relevant questions given she had explained clearly to him that an essential purpose of having battery backup was to pump water for drinking, showers, toilet flushing and heating during a blackout.
5. Mr Carydias said the system was installed by WM and they signed off on site after installation and they had responsibility for design not GVS. Ms Stewart disputed Mr Carydias's claim referring to the email from Mr Mckenzie sent on 27 September 2023 wherein he advised they were given no information about the design and that they only discovered that the property had a water pump during the installation process.
6. Mr Carydias agreed that the contract for supply and installation was between the applicants GVS not between the applicants and the installer WM and that WM were contracted by GVS to do the work. However, Mr Carydias said the applicants were in attendance when the installation was carried out and were happy with the installation.

1. Mr Devenish gave evidence that he agreed that he spoke to Ms Stewart a number of times over a three-month period leading up to the signed agreement. He said he never advised Ms Stewart that GVS can back up the whole house because only the installer can determine what will work whilst installing the system. He agreed that Ms Stewart said she required a system

with a battery back-up to provide power for the water pumps, lights and appliances in the event of a black out. He agreed she was given the three options, and she chose the Sonnen battery. However, he said he advised Ms Stewart that the Sonnen batteries capacity was for 10 amperages back up and that Ms Stewart said the pumps only have 2.5 amperage capacity. Mr Devenish said ultimately the applicants signed the contract which provided for installation of a battery with capacity of 10 amperages and that is what they received and accepted, and the system functioned as it should within its capacity, that is it is only not working to power the pumps in the event of a black out.

1. Ms Stewart denied giving the information that Mr Devenish claimed regarding the amperage and repeated her earlier evidence regarding her lack of knowledge of water pumps or the amperage capacity.
2. Mr Devenish said the applicants had three months to research the issue before signing the contract but never gave any specific details regarding the system they needed.
3. Mr Carydias said he did not carry out a site visit nor did Mr Devenish because the design and installation was the responsibility of the electrician including the amperage capacity they needed to power the water pump. Ms Stewart said this is contradicted by the electrician in the email that was sent on 27 September 2023. She repeated her earlier evidence that they didn't research what battery they needed because they were relying on the expertise and advice of Mr Devenish.

1. Section 55 of the Australian Consumer Law ('ACL') provides a guarantee to consumers that: if (a) a person (the supplier) supplies, in trade or commerce, goods to a consumer; and (b) the supply does not occur by way of sale by auction; there is a guarantee that the goods are reasonably fit for any disclosed purpose, and for any purpose for which the supplier represents that they are reasonably fit.
2. Section 55(2) sets out what forms a consumer's disclosure of a required purpose can take, and in most cases the consumer will inform the supplier at the point of sale the purpose for which the goods they require . Section 55(2) anticipates the circumstances in which the consumer may make their purpose known, either directly or indirectly, and protects the consumer by identifying the parties to whom the consumer may have made their purpose known.
3. Section 55(2) relevantly provides:

A disclosed purpose is a particular purpose (whether or not that purpose is a purpose for which the goods are commonly supplied) for which goods are being acquired by the consumer and that:

(a) the consumer makes known, expressly or by implication, to:

(i) the supplier; or

(ii) a person by whom any prior negotiations or arrangements in relation to the acquisition of the goods were conducted or made.

1. The purpose of this guarantee is to protect a consumer who has relied on the skill and judgment of the supplier (whether a retailer or manufacturer) in selling goods to the consumer that will assist in achieving the purpose they had in mind for the goods.
2. Section 55(3) of the ACL provides an exception if the circumstances show that the consumer did not rely on, or that it was unreasonable for the consumer to rely on, the skill or judgment of the supplier or the person by whom any prior negotiations or arrangements in relation to the acquisition of the goods were conducted or made.
3. VCAT has jurisdiction to hear the claim. The dispute involves a claim by a consumer as defined under the Australian Consumer Law because the claim is less than $15,000.00 and GVS was supplying the goods and labour in trade or commerce as they clearly conducted a business trading in the sale and installation of solar batteries.
4. The remedies available to consumers in respect of a breach of the consumer guarantees regime depends on whether the failure by a supplier to comply with the relevant consumer guarantee is determined to be a major or minor failure.
5. A major failure is defined in section 2 of the ACL by reference to section 260 and occurs in one of five circumstances as outlined in section 260 of the ACL and the following are relevant to this case:

(a) the goods would not have been acquired by a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the nature and extent of the failure; or

(b) The goods are substantially unfit for a purpose for which goods of the same kind are commonly supplied and they cannot easily and within a reasonable time be remedied to make them fit for such a purpose; or

(c) the goods are unfit for a disclosed purpose that was made known to the supplier of the goods or by a person by whom any prior negotiations or arrangements in relation to the acquisition of the goods were conducted or made; and cannot easily and within a reasonable time be remedied to make them fit for such a purpose; or

(d) the goods are not of acceptable quality because they are unsafe.

1. If the failure by the supplier to comply with the consumer guarantee is characterised as a major failure, then sections 259(3) and (4) of the ACL provide a consumer with three separate remedies:
   1. Notification of rejection of goods- the consumer is entitled to notify the supplier of his or her intention to reject the goods: s 259(3)(a).
   2. Recovery of compensation- the consumer may recover compensation against the supplier for any reduction in the value of the goods below the price paid or payable by the consumer for the goods: s 259(3)(b).
   3. Recovery of damages-the consumer may recover damages for any loss or damage suffered by the consumer because of the failure to comply with the guarantee provided that it was reasonably foreseeable that the

consumer would suffer such loss or damage as a result of the failure: 259(4).

1. The supplier may remedy a failure to comply with the guarantee by replacing the goods with goods of an identical type or by refunding any money paid by the consumer for the goods and an amount equal to the value of any other consideration provided by the consumer for the goods.
2. If the supplier either refuses to remedy the failure through this process or fails to remedy the failure within a reasonable time the consumer then has two choices:
   1. The consumer can remedy the fault themselves and recover the reasonable costs associated with doing so: section 259(b)(i).
   2. Alternatively, pursuant to section 259(2)(b)(ii) and subject to the limitations in section 262 the consumer can notify their supplier that the consumer rejects the goods and of the grounds for the rejection.
3. While section 259 of the ACL provides the consumer with the right to reject goods in certain circumstances this right is regulated by the provisions and limitations of section 262 which sets out four circumstances in which a consumer is not entitled to notify a supplier of his or her intention to reject the goods. They are:
   1. The rejection period for the goods has ended.
   2. The goods have been lost destroyed or disposed of by the consumer.
   3. The goods were damaged after being delivered to the consumer for reasons not related to their state or condition at the time of supply.
   4. The goods have been attached to or incorporated in any real or personal property and they cannot be detached or isolated without damaging them in relation to the rejection period.
4. Section 262(2) of the ACL provides the rejection period for goods is the period from which time of the supply of the goods to the consumer within which it would be reasonable to expect the relevant failure to comply with a guarantee referred to in section 259(1)(b) to become apparent having regard to (a) the type of goods; and (b) the use of to which a consumer is likely to put them; and (c) the length of time for which it is reasonable for them to be used; and (d) the amount of use to which it is reasonable for them to be put before such a failure becomes apparent.

1. The issues in this dispute are:
   1. Whether GVS has breached section 55 of the ACL.
   2. Whether Mr Goedemans and Ms Stewart are entitled to the remedy sought, namely the cost of refunding the battery.

1. I am satisfied on the evidence before me that Mr Goedemans and Ms Stewart have proven on the balance of probabilities that GVS have breached section 55 of the ACL for the following reasons:

(a) I found Ms Stewart to be a reliable witness who gave cogent and clear evidence regarding her conversations with Mr Devenish prior to reaching agreement for the supply and installation of the battery. I am satisfied based on her evidence that she made it clear to Mr Devenish during the phone discussions before signing the contract the purpose of the purchase of the system included the operation of the water pump in the event of a power blackout. This was not disputed by Mr Devenish.

(b) I accept Ms Stewart's evidence that she did not advise Mr Devenish of any details regarding the pumps, including the power amperage of the pumps. This is because her evidence is consistent with her evidence that she knew nothing about solar or battery systems or water pumps or

amperage at the time and she was relying on Mr Devenish's advice,

skills and experience and or expertise.

(c) Making the purpose known to Mr Devenish orally by telephone satisfies the meaning of disclosure of a purpose contained in section 55(2) of the ACL because it includes conveying the purpose verbally.

(d) The quote and contract also include reference to the words "black out protection" and Mr Carydias and Mr Devenish do not dispute that Mr Goedemans and Ms Stewart required the battery to provide back up in the event of a black out.

(e) It is clear Mr Goedemans and Ms Stewart relied on the skill and judgment of the suppliers as they had no knowledge of solar or battery systems at the time, including technical matters such as the required amperage that is needed for them to have the battery power the water pumps in the event of a black out.

(f) It is clear that the battery system was never fit for purpose because it did not have capacity to provide power back up for the water pumps. This is confirmed by the manufacturer Sonnen, the electrician installer, WM and Mr Carydias himself in their email correspondence provided by Ms Stewart and it was conceded by Mr Carydias whilst giving evidence.

(g) I do not accept that GVS's offer of settlement to mitigate Mr

Goedemans' and Ms Stewart's loss by replacing their five water pumps with one water pump was a reasonable offer because the one replacement pump would require Mr Goedemans and Ms Stewart to accept an inferior system regarding their capacity for the supply of water for their purposes on their premises.

(h) I do not accept the contention made by GVS that they have provided a battery that was fit for purpose because Mr Goedemans and Ms Stewart accepted their written offer contained in the quote for a battery with a specific capacity. This argument ignores the fact that Mr Goedemans and Ms Stewart made it clear the purposes of having battery backup was to provide power to run the specific power sources, namely and most importantly the five water pumps in the event of a black out. Given their lack of expertise and clear reliance on GVS's skill and judgment it was GVS's responsibility to ask any relevant questions

regarding Mr Goedemans and Ms Stewart's needs and to address them

as part of what advice is given regarding a suitable battery back-up system that will power the water pumps in the event of a black out.

(i) I do not accept GVS's argument that the electricians WM that installed the system are responsible to Ms Stewart and Mr Goedemans for any failure of the system to work because they were responsible for the design and installation of a system that was fit for purpose. Mr Carydias conceded that the contract for installation was between GVS and the WM not between Mr Goedemans and Ms Stewart and WM; and therefore it is clear that Mr Goedemans and Ms Stewart had no contract with WM regarding design or installation requirements and were reliant on GVS to ensure that the system was correctly designed and installed by the electrician so that it was fit for the their purpose.

(j) In conclusion, I find that the battery was not fit for purpose to provide the necessary power for the water pump in the event of a power black out, and that Mr Carydias and Mr Devenish conceded that this was a priority or essential purpose of the system; and that Ms Stewart relied on Mr Devenish's advice regarding the correct battery that would be fit for purpose.

(k) Having found that GVS is in breach of section 55 of the ACL I now address the question whether Mr Goedemans and Ms Stewart are entitled to the remedy they are seeking.

(l) I find that I am satisfied Mr Goedemans and Ms Stewart are entitled to a refund of the cost of the batteries installed. They required a system that would work to provide the functions they requested in the event of a black out and the system failed to work, I am satisfied this constitutes a major failure.

(m) This is because pursuant to sections 2 and 260(a) of the ACL the battery would not have been acquired by a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the nature and extent of the failure. A reasonable consumer who needs a battery to supply power for the pumps for the water tanks, flushing toilets, drinking water, showers and heating and power for the fridge, lights and other appliances during a black out would expect the battery to work during those times.

(n) Further, the battery is substantially unfit for the purpose for which goods of the same kind are commonly supplied and the goods are unfit for a disclosed purpose that was made known to the supplier's sales manager and representative Mr Devenish and that cannot easily within a reasonable time be remedied to make them fit for such a purpose other than by replacing the battery with a battery that can provide the power required.

(o) I am satisfied that the rejection period had not ended because I am satisfied they rejected the goods and requested a refund within a

reasonable period of time. I am satisfied on the basis of Ms Stewart's evidence that they tried unsuccessfully to negotiate with GVS, the manufacturer Sonnen and the electrician WM to resolve the problem but after many attempts to remedy the problem unsuccessfully, and receiving advice the problem could not be fixed without replacing the battery or reducing the number of water pumps they rejected the goods

within a reasonable time after becoming aware that the fault could not be fixed and made their application to VCAT.

(p) Accordingly, I am satisfied Mr Goedemans and Ms Stewart are entitled to reject the goods and seek a refund of the amount paid for the battery in the amount of $14,900.00.

(q) Mr Carydias and Mr Devenish asserted that Mr Goedemans and Ms Stewart did not provide any evidence regarding the cost of replacing the battery with a battery that is fit for purpose. However, the applicants are not claiming the cost of a suitable replacement, they are claiming a refund of the costs of the battery because the battery is not fit for purpose. I accept their evidence that the battery will cost approximately

$15,000.00 not including installation costs.

(r) The battery has never worked to power the water pumps during blackouts since installation and therefore Mr Goedemans and Ms Stewart have not had the use of the battery for its primary purpose for the three years since it has been installed. They are entitled to a full refund in order to put them in the position they would have been had the breach of the guarantee under section 55 not occurred.

1. I order that GVS pay Mr Goedemans and Ms Stewart $14,900.00 and the VCAT filing fee and upon payment the battery be available for collection by GVS from the Ms Steewart and Mr Goedemans address.