Save the Koalas invokes the following four Halachos.

1. A consumer who noticed an unforeseeable blemish in the merchandise after the transaction was completed, is entitled to recourse ad infinitum provided that the consumer did not subsequently utilize the article. Otherwise, usage of the article indicates a consent to the deal [Choshen Mishpat 232: 3 Pischei Teshuva 1].

 

 2. Unless otherwise stipulated, transaction terms are subject to local accepted custom. Hence, the classification of blemishes worthy of recourse are subject to local custom [Choshen Mishpat 232:6].

 

3. Unless otherwise expressed, a contemporary consumer of a new article expects to receive merchandise void of previous defects or blemishes. (Unlike an error in quantity, which can be easily rectified without altering the essential product, and as such, the consumer cannot dissolve the sale if the merchant can supply the requested volume, a refurbished product is not a new product, and as such, having to refurbish or repair the merchandise is not considered rectifiable.) [Choshen Mishpat 232: 1, 7, Pischei Choshen Hilchos Ona'ah 13: 6].

 

4. One is absolved from paying for unintentional indirect damages [Choshen Mishpat 386, Imrei Yosher].

 

 

 

Application

 

When purchasing a new item, the consumer can expect to receive unblemished merchandise. Does a Chinese auction winner have the right to expect to win unblemished merchandise, or should the winner consider that the donated item came from stock that the donor store could not sell?

 

Dayan Chaim Kohn ruled that it is wrong and unjust for an institution to auction defective merchandise without being upfront with their clientele.

 

Objectively, a Chinese auction winner can require the institution to deliver unblemished merchandise. (In a society, where it may be unfortunately common to receive blemished merchandise at a Chinese auction, the winner's expectations would adjust accordingly.)

 

However, Save the Koala Bears is absolved from paying for indirect and unintentional damage caused.

 

Hence, if the winner hired the technician on his/her own volition, the winner cannot require the institution to pay.

 

As the institution is required to deliver an unblemished computer, if the winner does not mind a repaired computer, the institution may see it profitable to hire a technician. Thus, before hiring the technician, it is sensible for the winner to confer with the institution.

 

Otherwise, the winner may oblige the institution to supply a new working computer.