Nasir is the owner of a plumbing business. One weekend, Nasir visited a local RB Mobile Ltd store. RB Mobile Ltd imports and sells a variety of smart phones and phone accessories. After talking to a salesperson, Nasir became particularly interested in a Samsung Galaxy S23 smart phone. He didn't tell the salesperson what he needed the phone for, but the salesperson said that "he could not go wrong with that model". Nasir purchased three Samsung Galaxy S23 smart phones. The phones cost $1399 each. Nasir was not provided with any paperwork. Nasir decided to lend two of the phones to his employees to use for business purposes and set them up on his business phone plan. Five months after purchasing the phones, one of Nasir's employees complained to him that his phone had stopped working completely. Nasir asked his employee how he had been using the phone and whether he had dropped it or damaged it somehow. The employee told him that he was using the phone normally and it had just stopped working. Nasir took the phone back to the RB Mobile Ltd store because he expected that the phone should at least last a couple of years without developing a defect. The salesperson at the RB Mobile Ltd store told him that the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 did not apply to Nasir as he is "in trade". The salesperson also told Nasir that the phone could not be fixed as it had an unrepairable hardware defect. Nasir is disappointed. He wants a refund from RB Mobile Ltd and comes to you for advice. 

What advise shouold be given to  Nasir whether he has a right to a refund from RB Mobile Ltd under the Consumers Guarantees Act 1993 and how he should proceed.

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

In New Zealand the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 provides protections to consumers regarding the quality and performance of goods and services they pur... View the full answer