NSW Australian Consumer Law - Should I Pay Invoice of Rental?

[dan76n]

I've taken on a new role where the previous person in my role had rented an item from another company a few years ago and never returned it but kept paying the rental fee. I've just received an invoice for the last 4 months that hasn't been paid and it is quite a large sum.

I have found emails where the rental company had offered this person to pay out the item as they thought they had lost it but this was not actioned as the person left the business. I found the item and sent it back but have yet to pay any invoices.

I feel the rental company has taken advantage of the situation as the item to buy new is only 10% more than the monthly rental price. Added to this, it's been rented for years so it has been paid for 30 times over.

My question is, what are the likely scenarios if I don't pay the invoice under Australian Consumer Law? As its business based, they can't exactly ruin my credit rating. How can they chase after this money?

I know it sounds like I'm being a prick trying to avoid paying this but there's a lot more to this that makes me think something shonky was going on but I don't want to publish those details. If I didn't think it was shonky, I'd just pay it and be done.

 

[Sophea]

If the amount paid for the service acquired exceeded $40,000 you will not be considered a consumer under Australian Consumer Law. If not, it will apply to B2B transactions however there is nothing I can think of in it which would give rise to grounds which would allow you to be retrospectively be reimbursed for a period of a contract for which services were supplied but you just didn't need them. Or services were provided at an inflated, yet agreed to price.

At the end of the day you agreed to a contract and that contract continued until you cancelled it. You or your employee or predecessor failed (negligently or otherwise) to cancel the contract when it was no longer required. While the ACL does contain provisions regarding unfair contractual terms, there is nothing to suggest (based on the facts you have disclosed) that there was anything "legally" unfair about it.