In a display of extreme cheekiness, a Melbourne man has sought compensation because he couldn’t watch his favourite TV shows.
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.”
You can read the full case here.