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 a blanket sign suggesting faulty goods can't be returned may itself be misleading under section 29.

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 under section 3 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 (either is enough) — though goods (not services) acquired for re-supply, or to use up or transform in trade or commerce in production, manufacture or repairs, are excluded. Check how section 3 applies to you. 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 of a kind 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 section 3 of 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 a consumer body, 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 of a kind ordinarily acquired for personal, domestic or household use, it may allow a contract to limit liability, for goods, to replacement or equivalent goods, repair, or the cost of these (except for the guarantees about title, undisturbed possession and undisclosed securities in sections 51 to 53) and, for services, to supplying the service again or its cost. The limit doesn't apply if you show it isn't fair or reasonable for the supplier to rely on it. Any other term that, in substance, removes or diminishes consumer guarantee rights is void to that extent.

The connection to section 29

Section 29 of the ACL prohibits false or misleading representations about consumer rights. A business that displays a blanket "no refunds" sign, or relies on one 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 don't match their description.
• You acquired the goods or services as a consumer under section 3 of 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, for goods, they were not acquired for re-supply, or to use up or transform in trade or commerce in production, manufacture or repairs.
• 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, 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 you caused through abnormal use, such as 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, or a failure that can't be remedied, the consumer may choose to reject the goods (if the right to reject hasn't been lost under section 262) and seek a refund or a replacement (if one is reasonably available), or keep the goods and seek compensation for the reduction in value. For a non-major failure that can be remedied, the business gets the first reasonable opportunity to fix it, by repair, replacement or refund, within a reasonable time. If it refuses or doesn't do so within a reasonable time, the consumer can have the item fixed elsewhere and recover the reasonable cost, or reject the goods (subject to section 262). For services, the analysis differs. Under section 268, a failure is major where 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)). A major failure, or one that can't be remedied, allows the consumer to cancel the contract and get a refund for the part of the service not yet consumed (section 269), or to keep the contract and seek compensation for the drop in value.

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.

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 — a purpose you made known, unless the circumstances show you didn't rely, or it was unreasonable to rely, on the supplier's or manufacturer's skill or judgment)? A mismatch with the description (section 56)? A service not performed with due care and skill (section 60)?

2. Check for a chargeback. If you paid by card, ask your card issuer now whether a chargeback is available; if you used buy now pay later, ask the provider about its dispute process. Both follow the card scheme's or provider's own time limits, not the ACL's.

3. 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 to that extent) and a possible section 29 misrepresentation if the business relies on it to turn you away.

4. 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 to that extent under section 64 of the ACL. State what remedy you are seeking and give a reasonable deadline — 14 days (a practical default, not an ACL requirement).

5. 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.

6. Keep everything. The goods, the packaging, your proof of purchase, all written communications. Don't discard anything until the dispute is resolved. If the business disputes the cause of a fault, get a written report from an independent repairer or expert.

If you'd like help drafting that letter, fairgo can generate one for free. 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 often resolves a dispute without further escalation. If the business still refuses, the next steps are:

• Your state or territory consumer 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 guides to choosing the right tribunal or court and a tribunal versus small claims court have more.

• 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, your state or territory consumer body and a tribunal or court with jurisdiction are the right forums.

A business that has relied on a void term to deny a legitimate claim is often in a weak position before a decision-maker.

Common mistakes

Assuming the sign is legally binding. Displaying a "no refunds" sign prominently does not make it legally effective against consumer guarantee rights. Section 64 makes a contract term void to the extent it purports to exclude, restrict or modify the guarantees — 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 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, or one that can't be remedied, the consumer — not the business — chooses the remedy (rejection is available only if the right to reject hasn't been lost under section 262). 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 doesn't set a single fixed warranty-style expiry for consumer guarantee claims, but timing matters. Delay can make it harder to show that a fault reflects a lack of acceptable quality at the time of supply. You also lose the right to reject goods if any of the four grounds in section 262 applies: the rejection period has ended (it runs from supply, not from when you noticed the fault, for as long as it would be reasonable to expect the failure to become apparent, given the type of goods, their likely use, and how long and how much they can reasonably be used); 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 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
• How long you have to return faulty goods
• 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 complaint and escalation pathways (state and territory consumer bodies, tribunals and 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.