Appeal Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal — vehicle fault — fail refuse neglect to remedy — replacement — Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003 ss 16, 82, 89 & 90 — Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 ss 6, 18 20, 21 & 22 — 2B costs. The appellant appealed a decision of the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal which dismissed the then applicant company's claim for $20,000 in compensatory damages and an order that the respondent replace the vehicle the appellant purchased with the same make and model. The appellant company purchased a vehicle from the respondent in January 2016 for $158,995. In late February 2016 the vehicle was returned to the respondent due to a fault with the handbrake, which the respondent corrected. In March 2016 the purchaser again complained of the handbrake fault, which was identified as a fault with the park brake control unit. However, when this was replaced the respondent's worker damaged the vehicle's comand unit. In April 2016 Mercedes- Benz informed the respondent that the unit was irreparable and a new unit was required but there were no new units in New Zealand at the time. The temporary solution was to fit a dimensionally identical and interchangeable comand unit (that was fully operational) while waiting for a new comand model from Germany. The appellant's representatives did not accept this and argued the time taken was unreasonable, so ultimately sent a letter requiring an identical replacement vehicle of acceptable quality and compensation for the inconvenience. The Judge reviewed the operative legislation; the Motor Vehicle Sales Act and the Consumer Guarantees Act. On the claim of a replacement vehicle, the Judge held that the adjudicator was correct in finding that there was no failure on the part of the respondent to remedy the fault and, to the extent there was a failure to do so within a reasonable time, that was caused by the appellant's unreasonable refusal to allow a temporary comand unit to be fixed. On the issue of compensatory damages, the Judge accepted the adjudicator's finding that damages were not made out and accordingly dismissed the appeal. The Judge ordered costs on a 2B basis. Judgment Date: 15 March 2019.