section 64 ACL disclaimers: when 'no refunds' signs are unenforceable

You've probably seen them: a laminated sign near the register saying "no refunds or exchanges", a checkout screen with a tick-box next to "all sales are final", or a clause buried in a terms-and-conditions PDF that says the business accepts no liability for defective goods. These disclaimers are everywhere — and most consumers assume they're binding. Under Australian law, they generally aren't. Section 64 of the Australian Consumer Law makes any contract term that purports to exclude, restrict, or modify the consumer guarantees void to that extent. A sign or store policy cannot remove your statutory rights either — and relying on one to deny a legitimate claim may itself misrepresent your rights. The sign can stay on the wall. It just can't take away your rights.

Quick answer

Whether a "no refunds" disclaimer affects your rights depends on a few key variables. The most important: are you making a consumer guarantee claim, or a change-of-mind request? Consumer guarantees are statutory rights that section 64 of the ACL protects from being excluded or limited by contract. A disclaimer cannot override them. But if you simply changed your mind, no guarantee has been breached — and a business's "no change-of-mind refunds" policy can legitimately apply.

The other key variable is whether you acquired the goods or services as a consumer within the meaning of the ACL. The consumer guarantees apply where goods or services are of a kind ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use, or where the price does not exceed $100,000 — provided they are not acquired for re-supply or for use in a manufacturing or repair process. Where those conditions are met, a disclaimer that purports to exclude, restrict or modify the guarantees is generally void to that extent. One narrow qualification — section 64A, covered below — applies to goods or services not ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use.

What the law actually says

The Australian Consumer Law is Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. Part 3-2 sets out the consumer guarantees — a set of statutory promises that apply where goods or services are supplied to a person who acquired them as a consumer under the ACL. They include the guarantee of acceptable quality under section 54, fitness for any disclosed purpose under section 55, correspondence with description under section 56, and — for services — due care and skill under section 60.

Section 64 then does something straightforward but powerful: it provides that a term of a contract is void to the extent that the term purports to exclude, restrict, or modify a consumer guarantee, or the right to exercise a remedy for a breach of one. "Void" means the term has no legal force to the extent it purports to do that — it does not need to be struck down by a court before it stops operating. In practice, if a business keeps relying on it, you may still need to assert your rights through Fair Trading, a tribunal, or a court.

This applies regardless of:

• Where the disclaimer appears. A sign on the wall, a clause in a purchase agreement, a tick-box on a website, or a term buried in a 40-page PDF — none of these can override the guarantees.
• How the disclaimer is worded. "No refunds", "all sales final", "we accept no liability for defects", "warranty is the manufacturer's responsibility only", "goods sold as-is" — none of these can operate as blanket exclusions of the consumer guarantees. (A specific defect clearly disclosed before purchase is different — see below.)
• Whether you signed or clicked "agree". Agreeing to a contract that contains a void term does not make the term enforceable — you cannot contract out of the ACL's consumer guarantees.

Section 64 does not prevent a business from setting out reasonable procedures for making a claim — provided the process does not have the practical effect of excluding, restricting or modifying the guarantee itself. Nor does section 64A allow a business to exclude the guarantees altogether: in limited cases involving goods or services not ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use, it may allow the supplier to limit its liability to specified remedies — such as repair, replacement, resupply, or the cost of doing so — if the statutory conditions, including reasonableness, are met. But any term that, in substance, removes or diminishes consumer guarantee rights is void to that extent.

The connection to section 29

A related provision worth knowing is section 29 of the ACL, which prohibits false or misleading representations about consumer rights. A business that displays a "no refunds" sign — and then relies on it to turn away a customer with a legitimate guarantee claim — may be making a false or misleading representation concerning the existence, exclusion or effect of a guarantee, right or remedy, the specific conduct addressed by section 29(1)(m). That is a separate breach, carrying its own penalties. A contract term reflected in the sign may be void under section 64, while relying on the sign may separately be misleading under section 29 — two distinct problems for the business.

What about manufacturer warranties?

Consumer guarantees are primarily rights against the seller — the business you bought from — not the manufacturer. Manufacturers can have separate obligations under the ACL in some situations, including under the provisions dealing with actions against manufacturers, such as sections 271 and 272, but the core guarantee claim usually runs against the seller. A business that tells you "take it up with the manufacturer — it's their warranty" is often deflecting. If the goods fail a consumer guarantee, the seller is the first port of call — whatever the manufacturer's warranty says.

When this applies (and when it doesn't)

Section 64 protects consumer guarantee rights — so it matters what those rights cover, and what they don't.

Section 64 applies when:

• You have a genuine consumer guarantee claim — the goods or services are faulty, unsafe, not fit for purpose, or significantly different from their description.
• You acquired the goods or services as a consumer under the ACL — for example, because they are of a kind ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use, or cost $100,000 or less — and they were not acquired for re-supply or for use in a manufacturing or repair process.
• The business is acting in trade or commerce. This includes most sole traders and small businesses — the test is whether the person is operating commercially, not whether they are a company.

Section 64 does not help when:

• You changed your mind. The ACL does not require businesses to accept change-of-mind returns. A "no change-of-mind refunds" policy is not a consumer guarantee disclaimer — it is a legitimate business policy, because no guarantee has been breached.
• The fault was disclosed before purchase. If the seller pointed out a defect and you bought the goods anyway at a reduced price, you generally cannot later claim on that disclosed defect.
• You caused the damage. A guarantee claim requires a failure in the goods or services themselves, not damage caused by misuse.
• The seller is a private individual. The ACL applies to businesses acting in trade or commerce. A private seller on a second-hand marketplace is generally not covered — though note that many sole traders do qualify as businesses even if they are individuals, because the test is whether they are acting commercially.

Section 64 also does not change which remedy applies — that still depends on whether the failure is major or non-major. For a major failure, the consumer may choose to reject the goods and seek a refund or replacement, or keep the goods and seek compensation for the reduction in value. For a non-major failure, the business may choose the remedy — repair, replacement, or refund — but if it fails to remedy within a reasonable time, the consumer may be entitled to have the item fixed elsewhere and recover reasonable costs, or in some cases to reject the goods. For services, the analysis differs: a major failure in a service context (where a reasonable consumer would not have acquired the service knowing of the problem, where it cannot be made fit within a reasonable time, or where it creates an unsafe situation) allows the consumer to cancel the contract and recover money paid for the unsupplied or unconsumed portion of the services, or to keep the contract and seek compensation or a price reduction.

What section 64 does is ensure that where the ACL gives you a guarantee or a remedy, a business cannot remove or reduce it in advance — whether through a sign, a receipt term, an online tick-box, or a standard-form contract clause.

What to do today

If a business has refused your claim by pointing to a disclaimer, sign, or contract term, here's a practical sequence:

1. Identify what guarantee applies. Is the issue acceptable quality (section 54)? Fitness for a disclosed purpose (section 55 — noting that you must have made the purpose known and it must have been reasonable to rely on the supplier's skill and judgment)? A mismatch with the description (section 56)? A service not performed with due care and skill (section 60)?

2. Document the disclaimer. Take a photo of the sign, screenshot the website term, or save the receipt clause. This is evidence for both the section 64 point (the term is void) and a possible section 29 misrepresentation if the business relies on it to turn you away.

3. Write to the business. A written demand is far more effective than a phone call. State the date of purchase, describe the failure, identify the guarantee breached, and explicitly note that any term purporting to exclude your consumer guarantee rights is void under section 64 of the ACL. State what remedy you are seeking and give a reasonable deadline — 14 days is typical for most disputes.

4. Reference section 29 if the sign is being actively relied on. If the business uses the sign to turn you away, note that this may constitute a false or misleading representation about your rights under section 29 of the ACL.

5. Keep everything. The goods, the packaging, your proof of purchase, all written communications. Don't discard anything until the dispute is resolved.

If you'd like help drafting that letter, fairgo can generate one for free in under two minutes. The tool identifies the relevant ACL sections and produces a letter you send under your own name.

What if the business refuses

A well-drafted demand letter citing section 64 resolves many disputes without further escalation. If the business still refuses, the next steps are:

• Your state or territory Fair Trading body. Each jurisdiction runs a free conciliation service that will contact the business and attempt to broker a resolution. The Fair Trading body does not itself make binding orders in ordinary consumer disputes and cannot compel the business to participate — but many businesses respond to the contact. Full details for every jurisdiction are at /agencies.

• A state consumer tribunal or court. If conciliation does not resolve the matter, a binding decision may be available through a tribunal or court. The correct forum depends on your state, the type of dispute, and the amount involved. Tribunals such as NCAT (NSW), VCAT (Victoria), QCAT (Queensland), SACAT (South Australia), and their equivalents in other states can often hear ACL disputes where their enabling legislation confers jurisdiction — but for many ordinary ACL disputes, the Magistrates Court or equivalent court may be the correct binding forum. You can usually use these forums without a lawyer, though you may bring one. Always confirm the correct forum and current claim thresholds on the official site before filing. See our guide to choosing between a tribunal and small claims court for more detail.

• The ACCC. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission enforces the ACL at a systemic level and does not resolve individual disputes. If a business is displaying misleading "no refunds" signs as a widespread practice, reporting to the ACCC at accc.gov.au may be worthwhile — but for your individual claim, Fair Trading and the tribunal or court are the right forums.

The section 64 argument is well-established and tribunals encounter it regularly. A business that has relied on a void term to deny a legitimate claim is in a weak position before a decision-maker.

Common mistakes

Assuming the sign is legally binding. A "no refunds" sign displayed prominently does not make it legally effective against consumer guarantee rights. Section 64 renders any such contract term void — and a sign that misstates your rights may also raise section 29 problems for the business.

Conflating a change-of-mind refund with a guarantee claim. If the goods work perfectly and you simply don't want them anymore, section 64 does not help — no guarantee has been breached. Be clear — in your own mind and in your letter — that you are making a guarantee claim, not a change-of-mind request.

Directing the claim at the manufacturer instead of the seller. Consumer guarantees run primarily against the seller. If a retailer tells you to contact the manufacturer because "the warranty is their responsibility", that is often a deflection.

Accepting a repair when you may be entitled to more. For a major failure, the consumer — not the business — chooses the remedy. A business that offers only a repair for what is arguably a major failure may be misrepresenting your rights. Understanding what constitutes a major failure is worth doing before you accept any offered remedy.

Not putting the claim in writing. Verbal complaints are easy to dismiss and leave no record. A written demand citing section 64 creates a paper trail that is useful if the matter escalates. See our article on how a demand letter compares to going straight to a tribunal for context on why the written step matters.

Waiting too long. The ACL does not set a single fixed warranty-style expiry period for consumer guarantee claims, but timing matters. Delay can make it harder to demonstrate that a fault reflects a lack of acceptable quality at the time of supply, and rejection rights may no longer be available once you have kept the goods for an extended period. Raise the issue in writing as soon as you identify it.

Related reading

• Clothing return policies vs the ACL — what stores can and can't do
• Can I demand a refund? When Australian Consumer Law gives you the right
• Layby contract cancellation rights under the ACL

This article is general information about Australian Consumer Law, not legal advice. The ACL is complex and your situation may have details that change the analysis. For advice on your specific case, see your state's Fair Trading body — full list at /agencies.