Edward Oldfield

The applicant purchased a colour sorting machine for agricultural use that failed to perform to specifications within the first ten days of use.

Despite actual notice, the dealer and distributor failed to repair the machine, replace it, or terminate the sale agreement as required by the Farm Implements Act.

The Tribunal ordered the termination of the sale agreement and directed the distributor and dealer to refund the purchase price to the applicant.

The applicant purchased a colour sorting machine and subsequently sought a refund under the Farm Implements Act, alleging the machine failed to perform to specifications.

The dealer brought a motion to dismiss the application, arguing the machine was not a farm implement, there was no evidence of specifications, it had no obligation to refund, and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to make monetary awards.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues for a hearing on the first three grounds, and concluding it had both explicit and implicit statutory authority to grant remedial orders, including refunds.

The applicants sought a determination under section 5 of the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, alleging disturbances of noise and vibration from the respondents' agricultural operation.

The Board found that the applicants failed to meet the threshold test of proving they were directly affected by a disturbance, as they provided no evidence of an unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of their land.

The application was dismissed.