Compo for a dud TV?

In a display of extreme cheekiness, a Melbourne man has sought compensation because he couldn’t watch his favourite TV shows.

Panasonic_GT30_AngleR
A Panasonic TV

The man spent about $1,350 on a Panasonic TV in 2011, but earlier this year the unit broke down. The man eventually convinced the TV maker to refund him more than $1,000 for his troubles.

Not satisfied with this outcome, court records show the man also sought extra money “for loss of use of the television”.

“The applicant’s claim was based on the notional cost of renting a television set for the period of time for which he has been without a television,” court documents reveal.

However — and wait for this — the man admitted to Victoria’s Civil and Administrative Tribunal that “he did not actually rent a television set”.

WHAT?! So he sought money to compensate himself for the cost of a rental TV which he did not even rent?!

That doesn’t seem like a waste of court time, at all!

But fear not, dear reader, common sense prevailed and the court sensibly denied the man’s bid.

“As the applicant did not incur any expense to rent a television, he has not suffered a loss and is not entitled to an award of damages for loss of use of a television set.”

Indeed!

You can read the full case here.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s