JGS v JGT

The claimant paid the respondent, a car dealership, a deposit of $5,000 towards the intended purchase of a used Maserati Ghibli. The deal was recorded in a Purchase/Sales Agreement dated 28 February 2026. The salesperson's handwritten terms said the car was a consignment vehicle without warranty, that the sale was subject to loan approval and a pre-purchase inspection, and that the deposit would be refunded in full "If engine, gearbox or major accident (chassis)", otherwise the buyer would honour the deal. Printed words elsewhere in the Agreement described the deposit as non-refundable.

The inspection flagged oil or water leakage and gear shifting, and the respondent's representative accepted at the hearing that there was a transmission oil pump leak. The claimant said these were engine and gearbox issues entitling him to his deposit back. The respondent said the car was old, the issues were minor wear and tear, and the clause was understood to cover only major engine or gearbox problems such as failure or overhaul, so the deposit had been properly forfeited. It relied on an oral explanation said to have been given by its salesperson, Mr R, who was not called as a witness, and on later WhatsApp messages. The claim was heard in the Small Claims Tribunals, Claim No 12416 of 2026, with both parties in person.

1. Whether the written refund term in the Agreement clearly limited refunds to major engine or gearbox problems.
2. Whether an oral explanation or later messages could supply the narrower refund policy the dealer relied on.
3. Whether the printed description of the deposit as non-refundable changed the result.

The tribunal held that the dispute was governed not only by ordinary contractual interpretation but by the Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) (Motor Vehicle Dealer Deposits) Regulations 2009. Under reg 3 a dealer must state its refund policy in writing before collecting a deposit, and any ambiguity is construed against the dealer; reg 4 bars a dealer from keeping a deposit unless it complied, and reg 5 puts the burden of proving compliance on the dealer. Dealers may adopt strict refund terms, but they must be clear and in writing.

The only written policy was the Agreement. Its clause did not say major engine or gearbox issue, overhaul, internal failure or replacement, and recorded no exclusion for oil leaks or wear and tear. The word "major" stood before "accident" only, so it was at least ambiguous whether it qualified the engine and gearbox, and that ambiguity had to be read against the dealer.

The alleged oral explanation could not help. The claimant disputed it, Mr R did not testify, and in any event the Regulations require the terms in writing before payment. The WhatsApp messages were a post-dispute account of what the clause meant and could not form part of the written policy. The printed "non-refundable" wording, read with the handwritten clause, meant at most that the deposit was non-refundable unless the clause was triggered. The tribunal accepted that the dealer's position might be commercially reasonable for an 11-year-old car, but it had not put that limit in writing. It closed with practical guidance for consumers and dealers on documenting deposit refund terms.

The tribunal entered judgment for the claimant and ordered the respondent to refund the $5,000 deposit in full, with disbursements fixed at $20 for filing fees and service. The respondent was to pay $5,020 within seven days, by 28 May 2026, failing which the claimant could enforce the order.