1. The respondent in response to the applicant's complaints subsequently sent a leather and vinyl technician, Oscar Ortiz from OsCar detailing, to inspect the sofa on Thursday 17 August 2023.
2. Mr Ortiz wrote a report dated 7 September 2023 stating the following:

(a) The lounge was covered in a combination of leather and PVC;

(b) That the seat-base, back rest and head rests were made of leather;

(c) That the Lower front, sides and rear, between individual seat cushions and all beige coloured material was PVC, not leather;

(d) That the peeling was restricted to the PVC areas of the sofa;

(e) The condition of the lounge was good and consistent with normal usage.[1]

1. The respondent submitted that the invoice was not to be relied upon for a description of the product only the cost and delivery arrangements.

1. At the hearing the applicant restated her points of claim that the sofa she was supplied was not as described by the invoice, nor as described to her husband by the sales representative at the store, as the front of the sofa being leather and the back of the sofa being PVC. Instead, the supplied sofa was part leather and part PVC at the front-with the PVC not restricted to the back of the sofa, as described.
2. The applicant's husband did not attend the hearing. There was no direct evidence provided at the hearing of the discussion between Mr Mohammed and the sales person from The Furniture People_._
3. The director of the respondent, Shaz Maharaullee stated at the hearing in response to the applicants claims, that the sofa comes in two options-a full leather option that costs approximately $5,000.00 and the part leather, part PVC option that costs $2,400.00.
4. That the sales staff are trained to explain to the customers the difference between the, all leather sofas and the combination PVC and leather sofas and that the difference in the two sofas would have been explained to Mr Mohammed in store as part of the purchase process.
5. The respondent further stated that the description in the invoice was partially accurate in that it stated that the sofa was made of part PVC and part leather however there has never been an option for a complete sofa front in leather-unless the customer chooses a full leather sofa.
6. The respondent further submitted, at the hearing, that the sofa on display in the showroom was always part leather and part PVC as this is the most common purchase, and that the sales process combined with the ability to inspect the sofa prior to purchase is enough to ensure that the customer is informed of the materials and the make up of those materials in the sofa they are purchasing.
7. The respondent was insistent that the description on the invoice as to where the PVC and leather was on the sofa was not the correct description and should not have been relied on by the applicant.

1. Section 3 of Australian Consumer Law (ACL) that applies in Victoria provides as follows:

(1) A person is taken to have acquired particular goods as a consumer if, and only if:

(a) the amount paid or payable for the goods, as worked out under subsections (4) to (9), did not exceed:

(ii) if a greater amount is prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph--that greater amount; or

(b) the goods were of a kind ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use or consumption; or

(c) the goods consisted of a vehicle or trailer acquired for use principally in the transport of goods on public roads.

Guarantee relating to the supply of goods by description

(a) a person supplies, in trade or commerce, goods by description to a consumer; and

(b) the supply does not occur by way of sale by auction;

there is a guarantee that the goods correspond with the description.

(2) A supply of goods is not prevented from being a supply by description only because, having been exposed for sale or hire, they are selected by the consumer.

(3) If goods are supplied by description as well as by reference to a sample or demonstration model, the guarantees in this section and in section 57 both apply.

Guarantees relating to the supply of goods by sample or demonstration model

(a) a person supplies, in trade or commerce, goods to a consumer by reference to a sample or demonstration model; and

(b) the supply does not occur by way of sale by auction; there is a guarantee that:

1. the goods correspond with the sample or demonstration model in quality, state or condition; and
2. if the goods are supplied by reference to a sample--the consumer will have a reasonable opportunity to compare the goods with the sample; and
3. the goods are free from any defect that:

(i) would not be apparent on reasonable examination of the sample or demonstration model; and

(ii) would cause the goods not to be of acceptable quality.

(2) If goods are supplied by reference to a sample or demonstration model as well as by description, the guarantees in section 56 and in this section both apply.

1. The applicant maintains that she relies on the description of the sofa she purchased as is described in the invoice and that the goods did not match the description.
2. The applicant seeks repair, refund or replacement of the sofa resulting from a breach of the consumer guarantees as stipulated in the ACL section 56(2). In that the sofa supplied did not match the description provided in store or within the invoice.
3. The respondent further maintains that the invoice is not to be relied on for anything more than the cost of the sofa and the delivery instructions.

1. I am satisfied that the applicant is a consumer for the purposes of section 3 of the ACL as the purchase of the sofa did not exceed $40,000.00 and the goods were acquired for household or domestic consumption.
2. I accept the oral evidence of the director of the respondent, Shaz Maharaullee, that her staff are trained to explain the difference between the two options of materials for the sofa. However, there was no evidence or submissions provided at the hearing that the difference was explained on this occasion.
3. It is not possible to draw conclusions regarding the discussions held between the salesperson or salespeople and the applicant's husband as neither Mr Mohammed nor the sales person/s attended the hearing or made submissions regarding the oral assertions provided at the point of sale.
4. In conclusion, as it is unclear regarding the descriptions provided at the point of sale then section 57 of the ACL is unable to be considered as relevant to this matter.
5. The invoice dated 17 February 2019 clearly states that the material the sofa is constructed of and the position of those materials on the sofa is that the front of the sofa was made of leather and the back of the sofa was made of PVC. This description engages section 56 of the ACL.
6. I accept the evidence of the applicant that she expected, based on the invoice, a sofa, the front of which was made from leather and the back being made of PVC.
7. Section 56 of the ACL states that when a person supplies in trade or commerce goods by description to the consumer and the supply does not occur by sale by auction there is a guarantee that the goods correspond with the description.
8. In this instance the goods do not correspond with the description of the goods contained within the invoice and I find that it was reasonable for the applicant to rely on the invoice and expect that the entire front of the sofa would be leather with the back of the sofa made of PVC based on the description in the invoice.
9. I accept the evidence of the applicant that she contacted the respondent approximately 12 months after the purchase of the sofa to report the peeling of the PVC areas of the sofa.
10. I have reviewed the emails sent by the applicant to the respondent dated 6 and 26 April 2022, 30 May 2023 and the report of the technician engaged by the respondent dated 7 September 2023.
11. The emails dated 30 May 2023 are evidence of the applicants ongoing attempts to resolve the issue and the approximate date at which the applicant discovers and initially reports that the damaged areas of the sofa are PVC and not leather as she expected.
12. I further accept based on the email from the applicant to the respondent dated 30 May 2023 that the applicant had expected that the sofa she had purchased was all leather at the front and was surprised to discover otherwise.

1. For the reasons provided I accept that there has been a breach of section 56 of the ACL. The goods supplied do not correspond with the description of them contained within the invoice.
2. In relation to the compensation sought by the applicant as a result of the breach of section 56 of the ACL consideration must be given to the amount of time the applicant has had use of the sofa.
3. The applicant has had use of the sofa for more than 5 years as at the date of the hearing and given the length of time and in consideration of the report dated 7 September 2023 by the technician Mr Ortiz that the sofa was in good condition except for the PVC areas at the front of the sofa, it is no longer appropriate to seek a full refund or replacement of the sofa.
4. However, the applicant is entitled to an amount to enable her to have the PVC areas of the front of the sofa repaired or replaced.
5. I find that the applicant is entitled to an amount of $600.00 being 25% of the sofa's purchase price.