Update:
Well, I'm glad that's over.
First thing I did wrong was believe whomever told me that the Disputes Tribunal takes a more mediative/flexible approach to legal issues. Definitely should have come in with all the relevant sections of CRA 1979 and quotes to reflect pecuniary loss from the misrepresentation. Life goes on.
Faced with the fact that I had ill-prepared my case, and being offered a small refund of the purchase price, I decided to settle rather than have an adjournment that could land me right in exam times with another 9AM start. At the end of the day, I got what I came for, which was a more adequate settlement than the offer of $50, and now the seller knows that you can misrepresent an item for sale notwithstanding your honest belief.
For those who have similar situations, don't make the mistakes I did:
- Provide evidence to the respondent either before or at the hearing, plus copies for the adjudicator and yourself.
- The Disputes Tribunal takes as strict approach to the law as an ordinary court. Know your Contractual Remedies Act 1979 (operative section is section 9).
- You must provide evidence of a diminution in value and that is not quantifiable by reference to the cost to cure (unless you can argue that this is the most reasonable method, I suppose. There's case law on this point: Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v Forsyth).
So, now, I suppose I have a Forester STI Genome muffler for sale...