What is it we don't know?, page-50

You are right, IMO, it would cost TGA more to collect and dispose of the goods than the goods are worth. This is one of the reasons why I think one aspect of the class action has no legs - TGA simply does not want to retain ownership in goods that are fully depreciated, and not suitable to take back into stock.

The one aspect underlined above is the contention that TGA does not let customers take ownership of goods on lease expiry. This would be so damaging to TGA's business, that it would have to have a self-destructive personality if that were the case. Further, nearly 50% of TGA's customers sign up for a new contract on expiry of leases. I can hardly imagine that TGA enjoys that level of repeat business if it routinely reneged on the $1-buy understanding.

I read a TGA statement relatively recently that its policy was not to take goods of a specific age back into stock, but I could not locate that source when I tried to find it to establish the exact words. Used goods taken into stock have to be near new to be leased again. Older goods may be retained in limited quantities to replace items, rather than repair them, and perhaps to avoid moving items to distant locations if customers shift house.