Concept image only: not a customer repair or a demonstration of isolation, diagnosis or a repair procedure. The image does not establish whether equipment is energised or safe to work on.
The repair quote is $1,100. The new machine is $7,600. It looks like an easy choice—until someone asks who handles the kitchen while the old unit is unavailable, what connects the replacement, and whether either option will be ready for Friday.
Compare two workable routes back to service, then compare their complete costs and unresolved risks. A repair price and a purchase price describe different scopes. Neither establishes a diagnosis, a reliable completion date or a machine that meets the actual job.
The worked example below turns that decision into three checks: the operating job, the route back to service and the costs you can substantiate. All prices, events and scenarios are fictional, in AUD excluding GST. They are planning arithmetic, not quotes, forecasts or a recommendation to repair or replace your equipment.
Write the job both options must do
Identify the equipment and the service it supports. Record the menu or load, required output windows, supported containers or racks, staffing and installed conditions. Use observed demands and a representative assessment rather than an assumption that the replacement’s headline rating solves the problem.
Our imaginary venue has one dishwasher out of service before a booked function. Both proposals must address the same agreed warewashing job and the same deadline. The repair provider needs to explain the fault, repair scope and checks required for a return to use. The replacement supplier needs to establish the proposed machine’s actual loading, services and operating suitability.
Do not award either option a pass simply because it is familiar or new. A repair may restore a machine that no longer suits the job. A replacement may introduce an unresolved rack, access or services mismatch. Keep these as questions requiring evidence, rather than predictions about every repair or new machine.
Compare the complete first-step costs
The fictional estimates below include a temporary operating arrangement in both paths. Its availability and suitability still need confirmation. The example does not authorise the venue to operate without an adequate warewashing process.
| Listed item — AUD ex GST | Repair route | Replacement route | Evidence to request |
|---|---|---|---|
| Repair scope / new machine | $1,100 | $7,600 | Exact work and parts / exact model and package |
| Delivery | Included in stated repair scope | $250 | Written inclusion and delivery access |
| Installation and connection | Included in stated repair scope | $900 | What work, tests and trades are covered? |
| Old unit removal | Not part of this route | $150 | Collection, handling and disposal scope |
| Temporary operating arrangement | $500 | $500 | Availability, duration, suitability and responsibilities |
| Listed first-step total | $1,600 | $9,400 | Unresolved items below are not priced as zero |
Scroll the table sideways to see every column.
The arithmetic is $1,100 + $500 = $1,600, compared with $7,600 + $250 + $900 + $150 + $500 = $9,400. The listed difference is $7,800 excluding GST. It is not a lifetime saving.
Building or services upgrades, additional access work, unconfirmed temporary arrangements, future operating costs, repeat faults, finance costs and any resale outcome remain outside these totals. Identify which are genuinely inapplicable and which still need a price. Do not write “$0” for an unanswered question.
Obtain actual GST treatment and payment terms with the proposals. This example makes no assumption about input tax credits, deductions or the after-tax cost of either route.
Put the deadline beside the price
Ask for the steps to a demonstrated return to service. For a repair, distinguish diagnosis, parts availability, attendance, work and the agreed completion checks. For a replacement, distinguish stock confirmation, delivery, positioning, connection, commissioning and operator handover. “In stock” is not a completed installation.
| Decision gate | Repair evidence | Replacement evidence | Fictional current status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can it perform the agreed job? | Defined repair outcome and operating assessment | Matched load and supported configuration | Unresolved for both |
| Can it be ready by the function? | Parts, attendance and completion commitment | Delivery, trades and commissioning commitment | Unresolved for both |
| What supports trade meanwhile? | Confirmed temporary process and duration | Confirmed temporary process and duration | $500 allowance is not a booking |
| Who accepts the result? | Named responsible operator and service evidence | Named responsible operator and handover evidence | Owners and checks to be agreed |
Scroll the table sideways to see every column.
At this point neither option has passed the readiness gates. The lower listed total does not resolve the deadline; the larger spend does not buy a proven solution merely by being larger. Request the missing evidence before ranking the options as complete proposals.
Record any contingency and who activates it if a commitment slips. Food-safety, hygiene and workplace requirements still govern the operation. A planning allowance does not create a suitable temporary process.
Test a repeat-fault scenario without calling it a forecast
A service history can tell you what happened. It cannot, by itself, tell you exactly how often the machine will fail next year. Ask the technician what the diagnosis establishes, what remains uncertain and which findings would change the repair recommendation.
For a simple sensitivity exercise, imagine each later event adds an $800 repair and $400 of net business impact. The combined hypothetical event is $1,200. Starting from the $1,600 listed repair route, zero, one and two such events produce $1,600, $2,800 and $4,000 respectively, excluding GST.
These are alternative scenarios, not three costs to add together or probabilities to apply automatically. They omit other operating costs and replacement-path risks. The exercise shows which assumptions matter; it does not establish that the repair will fail twice or that a new machine will never fail.
Use an appropriate business-impact measure with your accountant or adviser. Lost gross sales and lost contribution are different, and wages or temporary hire can be double-counted if they are already inside another estimate. Preserve the basis and the period for every amount.
Ask about coverage before allocating the bill
Confirm the relevant repair terms, supplier pathway and any potentially applicable rights before assuming every listed cost belongs to the venue. Keep the model, serial reference, purchase record, installation evidence and fault history together.
ACCC’s remedy guidance explains that the appropriate remedy depends on the circumstances. Do not treat this operational comparison as a determination of rights, eligibility or who must pay. Use the equipment warranty evidence guide to prepare the questions and documents for the relevant supplier.
Do not undertake unauthorised technical work to test a theory. Follow the appliance’s fault instructions and the appropriate service pathway. Where a fault affects food or hygiene control, keep the responsible operational response separate from the equipment purchase decision.
Compare ownership over an explicit period
Once the immediate route is workable, compare the period relevant to your business plan. State the start and end dates, the operating duty, included maintenance and the evidence behind consumption assumptions. A three-year forecast is not automatically more accurate than a shorter one.
Keep already-spent costs separate from future commitments. Show any anticipated disposal or resale value as an assumption with evidence, not a guaranteed credit. Ask what happens if the premises lease ends, the menu changes or the machine is moved.
business.gov.au’s equipment acquisition guidance highlights the different commitments and maintenance responsibilities to investigate when buying or leasing. If replacement funding changes the route, use the same equipment brief and obtain the actual agreement rather than comparing only a monthly repayment.
No energy, water or labour saving is assumed in this example. Add a difference only when you have comparable evidence for the duty being considered, and retain the unresolved range where the evidence is incomplete.
Prepare the repair-versus-replacement decision record
For your own supplier brief, record costs and timing, readiness gates, contingency, scenario assumptions and the owner of each open decision. Replace the fictional inputs with actual evidence and leave unresolved decisions visible.
For a replacement enquiry, send the defined job, existing model, site details and deadline through Atlantic Equipment enquiries. Include the unresolved services questions from the fitout coordination guide so the proposed replacement is assessed as an installed system.
Sources and example limits
Primary references checked: ACCC, Repair, replace, refund, cancel; and business.gov.au, Leasing or buying vehicles and equipment. The latter’s equipment discussion is used for acquisition commitments, not its separate vehicle-specific examples or a promise of equipment maintenance cover.
The venue, failure, prices, allowances and repeated-event costs are fictional. There is no real diagnosis, provider quote, lead time, failure probability, guaranteed operating saving or legal remedy decision. Match the equipment and obtain competent technical, financial and regulatory input for the actual circumstances.
About this guide
Prepared by Atlantic Equipment. This guide makes a repair-versus-replacement discussion compare complete routes back to service. Its worked costs, readiness gates and separate repeat-event scenarios expose missing scope and uncertain assumptions before a headline price drives the decision. Use the editable brief alongside the actual diagnosis and supplier proposals.
