Section 60 ACL: services rendered with due care and skill

You paid a professional to do a job. A mechanic, a builder, a hairdresser, a plumber, a personal trainer. The work is done — or at least, they say it is — but the result is shoddy, incomplete, or has caused damage it shouldn't have. Now the business is telling you that you got what you paid for, or that the problem is yours to fix. In Australia, the law says otherwise. Section 60 of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) imposes a guarantee that services supplied in trade or commerce to a consumer will be rendered with due care and skill. That guarantee is automatic and statutory, and a contract term generally can't exclude it (there are limited exceptions for some business-type and recreational services, explained below).

Quick answer

Whether section 60 gives you a remedy — and what kind — depends on a few key variables: whether you acquired the services as a consumer under section 3 of the ACL, whether the service was performed without due care and skill, and whether the failure is major or can't be remedied. Where the ACL applies and a failure is established, you generally have rights to a remedy against the supplier. For a non-major failure that can be remedied, you can require the supplier to fix it within a reasonable time; if it refuses or doesn't, you can have it fixed elsewhere and recover the reasonable cost, or cancel the contract. For a major failure (for example, where a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the failure wouldn't have acquired the service, or the service creates an unsafe situation), or a failure that can't be remedied, you may be entitled to cancel the contract and get a refund for the part of the service not yet consumed, or keep the contract and claim compensation for the drop in the service's value. The specific outcome in any individual case depends on the facts.

What the law actually says

Section 60 of the ACL is one of the consumer guarantees that apply automatically to services. It reads, in substance, that if a person supplies, in trade or commerce, services to a consumer, there is a guarantee that the services will be rendered with due care and skill.

"Due care and skill" is not defined in the ACL, but its meaning is well established. It means the standard of a reasonably competent person in that trade or profession. A plumber must work to the standard of a reasonably competent plumber. A hairdresser must work to the standard of a reasonably competent hairdresser. The test is objective — it is not enough for the supplier to say they tried their best. If the work wasn't done with the care and skill a reasonably competent person in that field would use, the guarantee can be breached. A poor result is often evidence of that, but isn't the test itself.

Section 60 sits alongside two other services guarantees that often arise in the same dispute:

• Section 61 — Fitness for a purpose, and results. If you made known a particular purpose, or the result you wanted, the service must be reasonably fit for that purpose, and of a nature and quality that might reasonably be expected to achieve that result. Neither applies if the circumstances show you didn't rely, or it was unreasonable to rely, on the supplier's skill or judgment. The result can be made known to the supplier or to whoever handled the earlier negotiations. Section 61 doesn't apply to professional services by a qualified architect or engineer.
• Section 62 — Reasonable time. If the time for supply isn't fixed by the contract or agreed, the service must be supplied within a reasonable time.

For the section 61 and 62 guarantees (but not section 60), you can't take action if the failure happened only because of someone other than the supplier (or its agents or employees), or a cause independent of human control after supply (section 267(1)(c)).

These three guarantees often overlap. A builder who takes twice as long as any competent builder would, and produces work that leaks, may be in breach of all three.

What counts as a major failure for services?

The remedies available to you depend on whether the failure is major or non-major. Under section 268, a failure with a services guarantee is major if:

• a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with the nature and extent of the failure wouldn't have acquired the service;
• the service is substantially unfit for a purpose services of that kind are commonly supplied for, unfit for a particular purpose you made known, or not of such a nature, or quality, state or condition, that it might reasonably be expected to achieve a result you made known, and can't easily and within a reasonable time be remedied; or
• it creates an unsafe situation.

Two or more failures that aren't major on their own are together a major failure if a reasonable consumer fully acquainted with them, taken as a whole, wouldn't have acquired the service (section 268(2)).

This is distinct from the goods-focused major failure test in section 260 of the ACL. Section 268 sets its own test for services, so don't apply the goods test. Separately, if a failure can't be remedied at all, section 267(3) gives the same remedies as a major failure.

Remedies under sections 267 to 269

Section 267 is the operative remedy provision for services. If the failure can be remedied and isn't major, you can require the supplier to fix it within a reasonable time (section 267(2)). If it refuses, or doesn't do so within a reasonable time, you can:

• have the failure fixed elsewhere and recover the reasonable cost from the supplier; or
• cancel the contract and get a refund for the part of the service not yet consumed (section 269).

If the failure is major or can't be remedied, section 267(3) lets you cancel the contract and get a refund for the part of the service not yet consumed (section 269), or keep the contract and claim compensation for any drop in the service's value below the price you paid or agreed to pay. You can also claim other reasonably foreseeable loss (section 267(4)), if you can evidence it, took reasonable steps to limit it, and don't claim the same loss twice.

Section 64: exclusion clauses are void to that extent

A contract term is void to the extent it purports to exclude, restrict or modify the section 60 guarantee or your remedies (section 64 of the ACL). It does not matter whether the clause is in fine print, a terms-and-conditions page, or a document you signed. There are limited exceptions. For services not of a kind ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use or consumption, section 64A may let a contract limit liability to supplying the service again or paying the cost of that, unless you show relying on the limit isn't fair or reasonable. And under the Competition and Consumer Act, a contract for recreational services (sport, or activities involving significant physical exertion or risk undertaken for recreation) can exclude or limit liability for death or personal injury under the services guarantees, though not for significant injury caused by the supplier's reckless conduct. For more on how disclaimers interact with consumer guarantees, see our article on section 64 and ACL disclaimers.

When this applies (and when it doesn't)

When section 60 applies

Under section 3 of the ACL, you acquired services as a consumer if the amount paid or payable was $100,000 or less, or the services are of a kind ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use or consumption; either is enough. Check how section 3 applies to you. So a homeowner hiring a plumber, a person booking a haircut, or a small business owner engaging an IT consultant for their own office systems can all potentially rely on section 60 (though for business-type services, a contract may limit liability under section 64A, as explained above).

The supplier must be acting in trade or commerce. The ACL applies to businesses — including sole traders such as individual mechanics, personal trainers, and freelance tradespeople — where they are supplying services in the course of a business. The relevant question is whether the person is acting in trade or commerce, not whether they are incorporated or employ staff.

When it doesn't apply (or is harder to use)

• Private arrangements. If a friend or neighbour fixes your roof as a favour, with no commercial relationship, the ACL does not apply. But most sole traders operating commercially will qualify as businesses even if they are individuals.
• Some services are excluded. The services guarantees don't apply to contracts of insurance, or to transporting or storing goods for a business (section 63).
• Overseas suppliers. Whether the ACL applies to an overseas supplier depends on the circumstances — it can still apply where the supplier supplied directly to an Australian consumer — but enforcement across borders may be more difficult in practice.
• Professional services with a separate regulatory regime. Legal and medical services are not excluded from the ACL, but their professional standards are also governed by separate regulatory frameworks. Section 60 still applies, but the standard of "due care and skill" is likely to be assessed against the relevant professional standard. State or territory laws (such as civil liability laws) can also limit liability for some services failures, so check before relying on section 60 for an injury claim.
• The failure was caused by you. If the damage or poor outcome resulted from your own instructions or your interference with the work, the section 60 guarantee may not be breached.

What to do today

If you believe a service was not performed with due care and skill, here is a practical sequence that tends to produce results:

1. Document everything before it's repaired or altered. Photographs, video, written notes with dates. If a tradesperson's work has caused damage, document the damage in detail before anyone touches it. This evidence is the foundation of any claim.

2. Get an independent assessment if you can. A written quote or report from another qualified tradesperson identifying what was done incorrectly and what it will cost to fix carries significant weight — both in a demand letter and before a tribunal or court.

3. Write to the supplier. Email is fine. Set out the date of the service, what was done, what the problem is, and why you say it falls below the standard of due care and skill. Reference section 60 of the ACL. State what you want: rectification within a specific timeframe or, if the failure is major or can't be remedied, cancellation with a refund for the unconsumed part, or compensation for the drop in value.

4. Give a reasonable deadline. Fourteen to twenty-one days is a common choice (a practical default, not an ACL requirement), depending on the complexity of the work. State clearly what you will do if they do not respond — contact your state or territory consumer body, or file a claim in a tribunal or court with jurisdiction.

5. Don't pay the outstanding invoice in full without noting the dispute. If you pay in full without recording that you dispute the quality, it can be harder to argue later. If you must pay to avoid a debt dispute, pay under written protest and note that payment does not constitute acceptance of the quality of the work. Paying doesn't by itself give up your rights under the ACL, but a written note avoids an argument later.

If drafting the letter feels daunting, you can draft a demand letter using fairgo. The tool identifies the relevant ACL sections for your situation and produces a letter you send under your own name.

For more on what happens when a service goes wrong more broadly, see our guide on services that go wrong under the ACL.

What if the business refuses

If the supplier ignores your letter, disputes liability, or refuses to remedy the problem, you have several escalation paths:

Your state or territory consumer protection body

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 are at /agencies.

A tribunal or court with jurisdiction

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. Jurisdiction depends on each forum's enabling legislation, the type of claim and the amount, so confirm the forum and its current thresholds on the official site before filing. You can usually run a claim without a lawyer, though some forums restrict legal representation (QCAT, for example, requires permission). Check current filing fees on the official site, and ask about fee exemptions, waivers or deferrals if cost is a concern. Our guide to choosing the right tribunal or court has more.

See our article on demand letter vs tribunal — which path to take for help thinking through the decision.

Consequential loss

One aspect of section 60 claims that is often overlooked: if the poor workmanship caused you further loss — a burst pipe that damaged your flooring, a mechanic's error that caused a breakdown on a highway, a builder's defective waterproofing that led to mould — you may be able to claim damages for that further loss under section 267(4), not just the cost of the original service, if it was reasonably foreseeable, you can evidence it, you took reasonable steps to limit it, and you don't claim the same loss twice. Document all downstream losses carefully.

For specific industry examples, see our articles on what to do if a mechanic overcharged or did poor work and what to do if a builder didn't finish or did defective work.

Common mistakes

Assuming the guarantee only covers the cost of the service

Section 60 claims can extend to reasonably foreseeable further loss caused by the poor workmanship, not just a refund of the service fee, subject to the conditions above. If the bad work caused damage, document it and include it in your claim.

Accepting a verbal promise to fix it without a written record

If the supplier agrees to come back and rectify the work, get that agreement in writing — even a text message or email confirmation. Verbal promises are difficult to enforce, and if the rectification is also poor, you want a clear record of what was agreed.

Confusing section 60 with a warranty

The section 60 guarantee is a statutory right against the supplier, not a manufacturer's warranty. It arises automatically from the supply of the service. A supplier cannot point to the absence of a written warranty as a reason the guarantee does not apply.

Waiting too long

The ACL does not set a single fixed warranty-style expiry for consumer guarantee claims on services. But timing matters. Limitation laws and forum time limits still apply (NCAT, for example, has a 3-year limit), so check them before you file. The longer you wait to raise a defect, the easier it becomes for the supplier to argue the problem arose from something other than their workmanship — ordinary wear, your own use, or a subsequent event. Raise the problem in writing as soon as you identify it, and keep a dated record of when you first noticed it.

Paying the full invoice before raising the dispute

Once you have paid in full without noting a dispute, the supplier may argue you accepted the work. If you have concerns about quality, raise them before final payment where possible — or at minimum, note in writing at the time of payment that you are paying under protest pending resolution of the quality dispute.

Going straight to the ACCC

The ACCC investigates systemic conduct and industry-wide issues. It does not resolve individual consumer disputes. For your specific dispute, start with your state or territory consumer body, then a tribunal or court with jurisdiction.

Related reading

• Services that go wrong under the ACL — your rights explained
• Mechanic overcharged or did poor work? What the ACL says
• Builder didn't finish or did defective work — your options
• Business refused your refund? Here's what to do next
• Removalist damaged your furniture: claiming under the ACL
• Dry cleaner ruined your clothes: what the ACL says
• Mechanic made it worse: when a repairer causes more damage
• Solar installation problems: your rights when the system underperforms
• Tattoo gone wrong: your rights when the work is not what you agreed

This article is general information about Australian Consumer Law, not legal advice. It also touches on complaint and escalation pathways (state and territory consumer bodies, tribunals and courts, the ACCC), the Competition and Consumer Act's recreational services rule, and limitation and civil liability 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.