Section 55 ACL: the guarantee of fitness for any disclosed purpose

You walked into a store — or opened a chat window with an online retailer — and explained exactly what you needed. They pointed you to something on the shelf, said it would do the job, and you bought it. Then it didn't. That scenario is precisely what section 55 of the Australian Consumer Law was written to address.

Section 55 is one of the less-talked-about consumer guarantees, but because it is tailored to your situation, it can be more powerful than the acceptable-quality guarantee in section 54.

Quick answer

Section 55 can arise in two ways: you made a particular purpose known before the goods were supplied, or the supplier represented that the goods were fit for a particular purpose. Either way, the goods then have to be reasonably fit for that purpose — and if they aren't, you have rights to a remedy under the ACL. The guarantee is displaced only if the circumstances show you didn't actually rely — or that it was unreasonable to rely — on the supplier's skill or judgment.

The strength of your position generally depends on how clearly the purpose was communicated or represented. Your remedy depends on two questions: is the failure major, and can it be remedied? If it is major or can't be remedied, section 259(3) gives you the election: reject the goods (subject to the limits in section 262) and choose a refund or a replacement of the same type and similar value, if one is reasonably available, or keep them and claim compensation for the reduction in value. If it is non-major and can be remedied, the supplier gets the first reasonable opportunity to fix it within a reasonable time, by repair, replacement or refund; if it refuses or takes too long, you may have it fixed elsewhere and recover reasonable costs, or, subject to section 262, reject the goods.

What the law actually says

Section 55 of the ACL guarantees that goods supplied to a consumer in trade or commerce — other than goods sold by auction, where the auctioneer acts as an agent for the seller — are reasonably fit for any purpose the consumer discloses, and for any purpose the supplier represents that they are reasonably fit for. In practice, it's triggered two ways.

A purpose you disclosed. You make a particular purpose known — expressly or by implication — before the goods are supplied. This doesn't need to be a formal declaration. Telling a salesperson "I need a router that can handle 50 simultaneous devices in a warehouse environment" is enough. So is a written message to an online retailer asking "will this work with my existing Mac running the current OS?" The purpose can be made known to the supplier, to a person who conducted the prior negotiations for the sale, or to the manufacturer (directly or through the supplier) — but it must be made known while you're acquiring the goods, before they are supplied, not afterwards. The purpose doesn't have to be one that goods of that kind are commonly supplied for; it can be unusual or specialised.

A purpose the supplier represented. Even if you didn't spell out your own purpose, the guarantee can apply where the supplier represented that the goods were reasonably fit for a particular purpose. If a supplier tells you a paint is "suitable for exterior render" or a drive is "compatible with your model of laptop," that representation can bring section 55 into play.

Whether it was reasonable to rely — and whether you did. The guarantee is displaced if the circumstances show you did not rely on the skill or judgment of the supplier (or of that negotiator or manufacturer, as the case may be), or that it was unreasonable to rely on it. If you're a professional in the field and the supplier is a general retailer with no specialist knowledge, relying on their recommendation may be less reasonable. And if you'd already decided exactly what to buy before you walked in, and the staff member's input made no difference, the circumstances may show you didn't rely on their judgment at all. Reliance is judged from all the circumstances: written evidence helps, but it isn't strictly required.

When the guarantee operates, the goods must be reasonably fit for the disclosed or represented purpose. "Reasonably fit" doesn't mean perfect — the question is whether the goods are reasonably fit for that purpose in all the circumstances, including what was communicated.

Section 55 also works alongside section 54, the acceptable-quality guarantee. Section 54 asks about the standard expected of that type of product generally; section 55 asks about the job you needed done, so a product can pass section 54 but fail section 55. See section 54 and acceptable quality for how they interact. Where a suitability claim is false or misleading, it can also raise section 29; and section 56 (goods matching their description) can be relevant where goods sold by description don't match it.

Other loss. Beyond the main remedy, section 259(4) may allow damages for other loss the failure caused, if that loss was reasonably foreseeable. Keep evidence of the amount and its link to the failure, take reasonable steps to limit further loss, and account for any refund, insurance payout, chargeback or other reimbursement so you don't recover twice. This doesn't apply if the failure happened only because of a cause independent of human control after the goods left the supplier's control (section 259(5)).

When this applies (and when it doesn't)

Section 55 is most likely to apply when:

• You explained a specific use case before buying and the supplier confirmed the product would meet it — or the supplier otherwise represented that the goods were suitable for that purpose.
• You asked a specialist retailer for a recommendation for a particular task and followed their advice.

Section 55 is less likely to apply when:

• You didn't disclose a particular purpose before buying, and the supplier didn't represent that the goods were fit for the purpose you're now relying on. In that case, section 54 (acceptable quality) is usually the more relevant guarantee.
• You relied on your own expertise or research rather than the supplier's recommendation. If you specified the exact product number and told the supplier you'd done your own research, it may be harder to show you relied on their skill or judgment.
• The goods weren't acquired "as a consumer" within the meaning of section 3 of the ACL. Broadly, that covers goods that cost $100,000 or less, goods of a kind ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic, or household use, or a vehicle or trailer acquired mainly to transport goods on public roads (any one limb is enough) — but not goods acquired for re-supply, or to use up or transform in trade or commerce in production, manufacture, or repairing or treating other goods or fixtures on land. Check how section 3 applies to your purchase.
• The supplier told you before the sale they weren't in a position to advise on suitability, and you proceeded anyway — reliance may not have been reasonable.

Private sellers are generally not covered by the ACL's consumer guarantees, which apply to businesses acting in trade or commerce. Most sole traders will qualify as businesses even though they are individuals, because the test is whether they act in trade or commerce, not whether they are a company. A true private sale between individuals (say, a secondhand item sold on a marketplace) is a different matter, although the guarantees about title, undisturbed possession and undisclosed securities (sections 51 to 53) don't require trade or commerce and can still arise. But the section 259 remedies generally require a supply in trade or commerce, so in a genuine private sale any practical remedy may depend on the particular guarantee and on contract, property or other law.

Overseas sellers raise practical complications. The ACL can apply to some overseas sellers who supply to Australian consumers, but whether it applies and can be enforced across borders is complex. For more on buying from abroad, see online purchases and the ACL.

What to do today

Step 1 — Reconstruct the communication. Gather every record of what you told the supplier and what they said in response — a chat transcript, an email thread, a screenshot of a product page, or notes from an in-store conversation.

Step 2 — Document the failure. Photograph or video the problem. Note when you first noticed it, what you were trying to do, and how the goods failed to perform the disclosed purpose. Keep the goods — don't dispose of them, modify them, or return them informally without a written record. If the cause is disputed, an independent report can help. Ask it to record the model and serial number, the purpose disclosed, the operating environment and compatibility or load requirements, the tests performed and whether the fault was reproducible, the likely cause (including any misuse, later modification or other component), whether it can be fixed easily and within a reasonable time, the repair cost and time, and any reduction in value.

Step 3 — Assess whether the failure is major or non-major. Under section 260, a major failure exists where, among other things, the goods are unfit for a purpose you disclosed and can't easily and within a reasonable time be made fit for it; a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the problem wouldn't have bought them; they are unsafe; or they depart significantly from a description or sample. Note the different thresholds: the disclosed-purpose limb needs only that the goods be unfit, while the limb about the purpose goods of that kind are commonly supplied for needs them to be substantially unfit. Any failure that isn't major is a non-major failure. Then ask whether the failure can be remedied: if it can't, you have the same choice of remedy as for a major failure (section 259(3)), even if it isn't major. There is no rule that every section 55 failure is major. For a detailed explanation, see what "major failure" means under the ACL.

Step 4 — Contact the supplier in writing. Write to the supplier — email is fine — and set out:

• The date of purchase and what you bought.
• What purpose you disclosed before buying, or what the supplier represented about the goods, and what was said in response.
• How the goods have failed to meet that purpose.
• That you are relying on the consumer guarantee in section 55 of the ACL.
• The remedy you want. If the failure is major or can't be remedied, say which remedy you're choosing — rejecting the goods for a refund or replacement, or keeping them and claiming compensation for the reduction in value. If it's non-major and can be remedied, ask the supplier to remedy it within a reasonable time, and say what you'll do if they don't.
• A reasonable deadline for their response — typically 14 days.

A well-drafted letter citing the relevant ACL section often resolves disputes without escalation. If you want help, fairgo can generate a demand letter for free.

Step 5 — Keep a dated record of everything. Note when you sent the letter and any response; it matters if you escalate.

What if the business refuses

Your state or territory consumer protection body may help, for example by contacting the business or conciliating, if your complaint meets its criteria. Most expect you to have tried to resolve the matter with the business first, and eligibility rules vary by state and dispute type (in the ACT, for example, statutory conciliation applies only where the remedy you seek is worth $5,000 or less). These bodies don't make binding orders in ordinary consumer disputes and can't make the business settle. Contact details for every state and territory body are at /agencies.

A tribunal or court with jurisdiction is usually the next step if the business still refuses; conciliation isn't always required first. In NSW, Victoria, Queensland, the ACT and the NT, a tribunal (NCAT, VCAT, QCAT, ACAT or NTCAT) hears many consumer claims within its limits; in Western Australia, South Australia and Tasmania, ordinary consumer claims go to the Magistrates Court. Tribunals only have jurisdiction where their enabling legislation confers it, and the right forum depends on the type and amount of your claim. You can usually appear without a lawyer. Check the official site of the relevant forum for current claim thresholds, filing fees and procedures before filing, and ask about fee exemptions, waivers or deferrals if cost is a concern.

For a guide to choosing between forums, see our guide to the state consumer tribunals.

The ACCC investigates systemic conduct and industry-wide issues — it does not resolve individual disputes. A report may help if the practice is widespread, but it's no substitute for your consumer body, a tribunal or a court.

Common mistakes

Raising section 55 without evidence of the communication. Without evidence of the disclosure or representation, the argument is much harder. Get pre-purchase communications in writing where you can — even a follow-up email summarising an in-store conversation helps.

Accepting a "no refunds" or exclusion clause. Under section 64, a contract term is void to the extent it purports to, or has the effect of, excluding, restricting or modifying the guarantees or the supplier's liability for failing them. For goods not of a kind ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use, section 64A may let a contract limit liability to replacing the goods or supplying equivalent goods, repairing them, or paying the cost of replacement, equivalent goods or repair. That limit can't cover the guarantees about title, undisturbed possession or undisclosed securities (sections 51 to 53), and doesn't apply if you show relying on it isn't fair or reasonable.

Waiting too long. The ACL doesn't set a single fixed warranty-style expiry for consumer guarantee claims, but timing matters. Delay can make it harder to show the failure reflects the goods not being fit for the disclosed purpose at the time of supply, rather than something that changed later. You also lose the right to reject the goods if any of the four grounds in section 262 applies: the rejection period has ended (it runs from supply and lasts as long as it would be reasonable to expect the failure to become apparent, given factors such as the type of goods and their likely use); you have lost, destroyed or disposed of the goods; they were damaged after delivery for reasons unrelated to their condition when supplied; or they have been attached to or incorporated in real or personal property and can't be detached or isolated without damaging them. Deadlines for bringing a claim also apply under state and territory limitation laws and forum rules. Raise the problem in writing as soon as you identify it.

Accepting a repair when you may be entitled to more. For a major failure, or one that can't be remedied, you choose the remedy — you can reject the goods for a refund or replacement (if the right to reject hasn't been lost), or keep them and seek compensation for the reduction in value. You are not required to accept a repair. The supplier may assess the goods before providing a remedy, but an assessment isn't permission to repair: if you're rejecting them, say in writing that you allow inspection but not repair unless you later agree. If you reject, you generally return the goods, but where the failure, their size or how they're attached makes that significantly costly, the supplier must collect them at its expense; you then choose a refund or a replacement of the same type and similar value, if reasonably available (section 263). For a non-major failure that can be remedied, the supplier gets the first reasonable opportunity to fix the problem, by repair, replacement or refund; if it doesn't do so within a reasonable time, you may be able to have the item fixed elsewhere and recover reasonable costs, or reject the goods if the right to reject hasn't been lost. You may also be able to claim other foreseeable loss (see "Other loss" above).

Confusing the consumer guarantee with the manufacturer's warranty. The section 55 guarantee is a statutory right against the seller — primarily the retailer you bought from, not the manufacturer. Manufacturers have their own separate obligations under the ACL, but the damages action against manufacturers in section 271 covers other guarantees (such as acceptable quality and matching a description), not section 55, so a section 55 claim is against the business that sold you the goods (if the manufacturer sold to you directly, it is that business). Where the purpose was made known to the manufacturer, directly or through the supplier or negotiator, the supplier may have an indemnity against the manufacturer for qualifying costs, subject to statutory conditions; that's between them and doesn't reduce the supplier's obligations to you. Don't let a retailer redirect you to the manufacturer.

Related reading

• Section 54 ACL: the acceptable quality guarantee explained
• Section 29 ACL: false or misleading representations about goods
• When services go wrong: your rights under the ACL
• What "major failure" means under the ACL
• Business refused your refund? Here's what to do next

This article is general information about Australian Consumer Law, not legal advice. It also touches on state and territory consumer bodies, tribunals, courts, the ACCC and limitation laws, whose scope, rules, thresholds and processes sit outside the ACL or can change. Confirm the current position with the relevant body before lodging. For advice on your specific case, see your state or territory consumer body — full list at /agencies.