When the refund was declined, they took the company to the tribunal.
The dispute dates back to late 2021 when the couple hired the company to make a 3D model of their newborn baby, using a “state of the art” process involving hundreds of camera shots.
However, when the couple wasn’t happy with the result and claimed the skin colour was wrong, not smooth-enough and there were issues with the child’s feet and hands.
After the first day of the hearing between the two parties last year, the company took the model away and fixed the skin tone, returning on the second day with what the court deemed a “much better representation”.
But the couple still refused to accept the product and said there were differences between the photographs provided for the model and the actual result.
The Consumer Guarantees Act does not allow rejection of goods on the grounds that a purchaser has changed their mind or that they don’t like the result.
Essentially there has to be a fault with the product or service in order for it to be covered under the act.
Tribunal referee Michael Wilson said in his decision that the term “state of the art”, used to describe the modelling service, was a relative term that reflects the state of an art form as it is today.
He said while the process of 3D modelling had made significant leaps in quality over the last five years, the models could not be considered “perfect” representations of actual humans.
The couple went on to argue that they wouldn’t be able to show their family and friends the model because “no one would like it”.
“It is clear though that this is simply a matter of taste and not a fault with the product,” Wilson said in his judgment.
“However, such a model is actually what the Applicants asked for, whether they realised it or not.”
Wilson said that he had held the model and examined the photos of the child it was based off and was unable to identify any faults.
“It is apparent to me that the Applicants have simply decided they do not like it.”
The company was accused of having played up the quality of their work, with the couple also pointing out that other models advertised on their website were of much higher quality.
Emails were produced by the company, describing the process as “unique and amazing” but otherwise did not over-promise the eventual result.
“I can only note that this statement is true, having seen and held the model, even if it could be said that a fabricated model of a baby is (perhaps unsurprisingly) somewhat cold and lifeless,” Wilson said.
He suggested that in future, the company might benefit from being even more clear with customers about what to expect but overall it had taken steps to rectify the perceived issues with the model, though the couple was still not satisfied.
Wilson rejected the couple’s bid for a refund of their deposit and ordered them to pay the remaining $1,240 to the company.
The names of the parties involved in the decision were redacted.
