Consumer Protection Act

DreamKing said:
(I don't have time to highlight, find it yourself)

please read it carefully, don't only read "part" of the section.
Click to expand...



I still don't see why not. (1)(a) makes it clear that S 56 still applies to unsafe or defective goods. (4) only applies to goods returned in terms of S 20. You're going to have to highlight where S 20 will have any effect on the rights contained in S 56.

In fact, the whole of S 20 is irrelevant, unless the goods are returned in terms of (2)(a-d).
 
Does anyone have a link to it or a downloadable pdf so I can read it?
 
Drunkard #1 said:
I still don't see why not. (1)(a) makes it clear that S 56 still applies to unsafe or defective goods. (4) only applies to goods returned in terms of S 20. You're going to have to highlight where S 20 will have any effect on the rights contained in S 56.

In fact, the whole of S 20 is irrelevant, unless the goods are returned in terms of (2)(a-d).
Click to expand...

53. (1) In this Part, when used with respect to any goods, component of any goods, or services –
(a) "defect" means—
(i) any material imperfection in the manufacture of the goods or
134
components, or in performance of the services, that renders the goods or results of the service less acceptable than persons generally would be reasonably entitled to expect in the circumstances; or
(ii) any characteristic of the goods or components that renders the goods or components less useful, practicable or safe than persons generally would be reasonably entitled to expect in the circumstances;
(b) "failure" means the inability of the goods to perform in the intended manner or to the intended effect;
(c) "hazard" means a design characteristic that—
(i) has been identified as, or declared to be, a hazard by or in terms of any applicable public regulation; or
(ii) presents a significant risk of personal injury to any person, or damage to property, when the goods are utilized; and
(d) "unsafe" means that, due to a design characteristic, failure, defect, or hazard particular goods present an extreme risk of personal injury or property damage to the consumer or to other persons.
Click to expand...

read this, you will know why your "veg" will not apply to S55 and 56. :)

(may be I have to charge you :D)
 
DreamKing said:
read this, you will know why your "veg" will not apply to S55 and 56. :)

(may be I have to charge you :D)
Click to expand...

So, (1)(a)(i) obviously doesn't apply, but (ii) might apply. You wouldn't be "reasonably entitled to expect" every potato in a 10kg bag to be perfect, but, what about a once off - eg: a watermelon. I'd say that you'd be "reasonably entitled to expect" it to be fresh, and off take away sushi would definitely "renders the goods or components less useful".

I'll admit that it would be difficult to claim redress under S 56 for a vrot veggie, if you admit that that could cause a lot of trouble for food retailers having to collect every R 5 can of coke that's lost it's fizz between bottling and drinking. It's all fun and games until someone actually tries what we're joking about. The other thing is, you can't contract out of the law, these rights are always applicable, unless the law is amended.

I'll be back after supper, when I'll be able to think about something other than food.:D
 
Expect the cost of goods and services to rise even more :D
 
So, (1)(a)(i) obviously doesn't apply, but (ii) might apply. You wouldn't be "reasonably entitled to expect" every potato in a 10kg bag to be perfect, but, what about a once off - eg: a watermelon. I'd say that you'd be "reasonably entitled to expect" it to be fresh, and off take away sushi would definitely "renders the goods or components less useful".

I'll admit that it would be difficult to claim redress under S 56 for a vrot veggie, if you admit that that could cause a lot of trouble for food retailers having to collect every R 5 can of coke that's lost it's fizz between bottling and drinking. It's all fun and games until someone actually tries what we're joking about. The other thing is, you can't contract out of the law, these rights are always applicable, unless the law is amended.

I'll be back after supper, when I'll be able to think about something other than food.
Click to expand...

obviously laws always have "grey area". How you define "less useful". You may spend R10000 to count to find out what that means. :D
secondly, as a "reasonable" person, will you spend time and money on these "problems" you may not win? How do you prove that your "item" brought from "these" retailers but not "those" retailers? is that 10kg photos all of them labelled "sell from Pick in Pay"? I lolled. :D
finally, even you can prove that "veg" is from Pick in Pay and under S56 is true. Under S56 none of sentence indicated the retailer is liable to go to your house to take that "veg" and to replace you one. Only in S20 mentioned about "delivery" but that is not what you mean.

S55
(6) Subsection (2) (a) and (b) do not apply to a transaction if the consumer—
(a) has been expressly informed that particular goods were offered in a specific
condition; and
(b) has expressly agreed to accept the goods in that condition, or knowingly acted in a manner consistent with accepting the goods in that condition
Click to expand...

PS: read the act, if the "suppliers" do not provide "guarantee" or "warranty", basically you may not claim from S56. :)
 
DreamKing said:
obviously laws always have "grey area". How you define "less useful". You may spend R10000 to count to find out what that means. :D
secondly, as a "reasonable" person, will you spend time and money on these "problems" you may not win? How do you prove that your "item" brought from "these" retailers but not "those" retailers? is that 10kg photos all of them labelled "sell from Pick in Pay"? I lolled. :D
finally, even you can prove that "veg" is from Pick in Pay and under S56 is true. Under S56 none of sentence indicated the retailer is liable to go to your house to take that "veg" and to replace you one. Only in S20 mentioned about "delivery" but that is not what you mean.



PS: read the act, if the "suppliers" do not provide "guarantee" or "warranty", basically you may not claim from S56. :)
Click to expand...

Firstly, a consumer shouldn't have to go to court - the commission should fight his battles for him, so no cost there. And I think that, if the commission is run properly, retailers will soil themselves if you just mention referring the complaint to the commission.

Burden of proof is going to be tricky. We will see how retailers handle this, maybe some of them will resort to labelling every possible product, but time will tell. (This isn't just a problem for food retailers, some big ticket items are also going to be hard to trace back to their source eg. R 10 000 of cement. Even if a product has a serial number, that will have to be recorded by the retailer.)

S 56 (2) states quite clearly that the supplier is responsible for shipping costs:

the consumer may return the goods to the supplier, without penalty and at the supplier’s risk and expense,
Click to expand...

As for S 55 (6). That's not going to be easy for a retailer to institute. It can be argued that by going to a till point and paying for goods the consumer has "knowingly acted in a manner consistent with accepting the goods in that condition", therefore satisfying (b), but (a) is much more of a problem. The way I see it, a product must be offered "in a specific condition", it must either say "vrot" or "fresh", not "may be vrot". Otherwise every retailer could just stick a "may be defective" sticker on his product, and avoid any liability under S 56. Not going to happen.

Your PS is also patently false. S 56 (1) specifically states that S 56 applies to all transactions:

In any transaction or agreement pertaining to the supply of goods to a consumer there is an implied provision that the producer or importer, the distributor and the retailer each warrant that the goods comply with the requirements and standards contemplated in section 55,
Click to expand...

Edit: Sorry marine1, it's going to take a long time to become fully familiar with this act. I haven't got to services yet.

Edit edit: I don't see Pick & Pay issuing a press release, "All our veggies are fresh. We've just marked them as "vrot" to circumvent legislation designed to protect YOU, the consumer". Don't think that would do much for their public image.
 
Last edited:
Drunkard #1 said:
Firstly, a consumer shouldn't have to go to court - the commission should fight his battles for him, so no cost there. And I think that, if the commission is run properly, retailers will soil themselves if you just mention referring the complaint to the commission.

Burden of proof is going to be tricky. We will see how retailers handle this, maybe some of them will resort to labelling every possible product, but time will tell. (This isn't just a problem for food retailers, some big ticket items are also going to be hard to trace back to their source eg. R 10 000 of cement. Even if a product has a serial number, that will have to be recorded by the retailer.)

S 56 (2) states quite clearly that the supplier is responsible for shipping costs:



As for S 55 (6). That's not going to be easy for a retailer to institute. It can be argued that by going to a till point and paying for goods the consumer has "knowingly acted in a manner consistent with accepting the goods in that condition", therefore satisfying (b), but (a) is much more of a problem. The way I see it, a product must be offered "in a specific condition", it must either say "vrot" or "fresh", not "may be vrot". Otherwise every retailer could just stick a "may be defective" sticker on his product, and avoid any liability under S 56. Not going to happen.

Your PS is also patently false. S 56 (1) specifically states that S 56 applies to all transactions:



Edit: Sorry marine1, it's going to take a long time to become fully familiar with this act. I haven't got to services yet.

Edit edit: I don't see Pick & Pay issuing a press release, "All our veggies are fresh. We've just marked them as "vrot" to circumvent legislation designed to protect YOU, the consumer". Don't think that would do much for their public image.
Click to expand...

the "definition" of some terms are very clear in the act. I recommend you to read the act carefully then we may argue. You cannot take out the context of what the meanings are and just select some of them are suitable to your case. (the act is just 238 pages, not long :))

PS: terms and conditions within the act, ONLY the court has the power to explain what actual meanings are. NOTHING ELSE.
 
DreamKing said:
the "definition" of some terms are very clear in the act. I recommend you to read the act carefully then we may argue. You cannot take out the context of what the meanings are and just select some of them are suitable to your case. (the act is just 238 pages, not long :))

PS: terms and conditions within the act, ONLY the court has the power to explain what actual meanings are. NOTHING ELSE.
Click to expand...

My copy is 95 pages long, maybe you've got the large print edition. And I have read the act. The fact that you haven't countered any of the points raised in my previous most make me wonder if you've read the act.
 
Ninja'd said:
For atheists and anti-christians, would this include exposure to religious content?
Click to expand...

It doesn't cover transactions you do not enter into. So you can't sue for emotional damages when the plasma TV you never bought becomes obsolete faster than the shop alluded to. So no, obviously. ;)
 
Drunkard #1 said:
My copy is 95 pages long, maybe you've got the large print edition. And I have read the act. The fact that you haven't countered any of the points raised in my previous most make me wonder if you've read the act.
Click to expand...

I don't want to answer your questions it is because you did not understand what the act said, but you challenge me, I answer you ONE point FOR FREE, if you want me to explain to your further please pay first.

56 (2) states quite clearly that the supplier is responsible for shipping costs:

the consumer may return the goods to the supplier, without penalty and at the supplier’s risk and expense, As for S 55 (6). That's not going to be easy for a retailer to institute. It can be argued that by going to a till point and paying for goods the consumer has "knowingly acted in a manner consistent with accepting the goods in that condition", therefore satisfying (b), but (a) is much more of a problem. The way I see it, a product must be offered "in a specific condition", it must either say "vrot" or "fresh", not "may be vrot". Otherwise every retailer could just stick a "may be defective" sticker on his product, and avoid any liability under S 56. Not going to happen
Click to expand...

It is your question.....

according to warranty (if applicable)

57. (1) A service provider warrants every new or reconditioned part installed during any repair or maintenance work, and the labour required to install it, for a period of three months after the date of installation, or such longer period as the supplier may specify in writing.
Click to expand...

in other word, if the supplier provides warranty to specific product, the service provider has to install and repair by his/her cost. It is not included transport. The argue point is "what about on-site installation"? If the service you pay for is including “transport", that means the risk and expensive also including "transport". Otherwise NO!

Consider your statement is TRUE: I buy a TV and delivery to UK by MYSELF. Now the TV had a problem, the seller MUST fly to UK for repair? Or the seller must ship the TV to UK and replace it with his/her own cost?
anything never appeared in the act that you should never apply it by your imagination.

Use your common sense…... :D

2) Within six months after the delivery of any goods to a consumer, the consumer may return the goods to the supplier, without penalty and at the supplier’s risk and expense, if the goods fail to satisfy the requirements and standards contemplated in section 55 , and the supplier must either –
Click to expand...

what S55 told us?
S55
(2) Except to the extent contemplated in subsection (6), every consumer has a right to receive goods that—
(a) are reasonably suitable for the purposes for which they are generally intended for;
(b) are of good quality, in good working order and free of any defects;
(c) will be useable and durable for a reasonable period of time having regard to the use to which they would normally be put and to all the surrounding circumstances of their supply; and
(d) comply with any applicable standards set under the Standards Act, 1993 (Act No. 29 of 1993) or any other public regulation.
.....
(6) Subsection (2) (a) and (b) do not apply to a transaction if the consumer—
(a) has been expressly informed that particular goods were offered in a specific
condition; and
(b) has expressly agreed to accept the goods in that condition, or knowingly acted in a manner consistent with accepting the goods in that condition.
Click to expand...
(a) told you that you know already what is the condition of your "veg" : 2(a) removed
(b) you accepted for the condition of the "veg". :2(b) removed.
2 (c) irrelevant.
2 (d) Please refer to SABS acts. I don't explain here.

You obviously don't understand what the act said.
 
may be the act is very misleading. I agree some of the points never explain very clearly. And I can say some points are very childish. It is ANC government, what do you expect? ;)

have any argument? take it to court........... lawyers have many many businesses now -> thanks ANC :D
 
DreamKing said:
I don't want to answer your questions it is because you did not understand what the act said, but you challenge me, I answer you ONE point FOR FREE, if you want me to explain to your further please pay first.



It is your question.....

according to warranty (if applicable)



in other word, if the supplier provides warranty to specific product, the service provider has to install and repair by his/her cost. It is not included transport. The argue point is "what about on-site installation"? If the service you pay for is including “transport", that means the risk and expensive also including "transport". Otherwise NO!

Consider your statement is TRUE: I buy a TV and delivery to UK by MYSELF. Now the TV had a problem, the seller MUST fly to UK for repair? Or the seller must ship the TV to UK and replace it with his/her own cost?
anything never appeared in the act that you should never apply it by your imagination.

Use your common sense…... :D



what S55 told us?
S55

(a) told you that you know already what is the condition of your "veg" : 2(a) removed
(b) you accepted for the condition of the "veg". :2(b) removed.
2 (c) irrelevant.
2 (d) Please refer to SABS acts. I don't explain here.

You obviously don't understand what the act said.
Click to expand...

Quoted for posterity.

You shouldn't post while stoned/tripping/drunk, you just end up looking like an idiot. S 57 applies to repaired goods, not new goods. S 56 applies to new goods. Unless you prove otherwise I'll consider you pwnd.
 
CorneN said:
Sorry to bring this up again this thread, bit I dissagree.

Religion sells a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, purpose of the universe, et al and marketing is done by any of the normal means. Churches do make profit from this.

Sorry, but it is a product just as a McDonalds cheese burger is.
Click to expand...

So, if I'm flat out broke without a penny to scratch my arrse with, I can pick any religion or church out of the Yellow Pages and I will be denied the teachings, ministrations, and services after a free introductory period correct?
 
Drunkard #1 said:
Quoted for posterity.

You shouldn't post while stoned/tripping/drunk, you just end up looking like an idiot. S 57 applies to repaired goods, not new goods. S 56 applies to new goods. Unless you prove otherwise I'll consider you pwnd.
Click to expand...

please don't insult, if you don't have such knowledge, educate yourself first.

S57 is what I am trying to explain about the warranty how it works. It is nothing to do with "new" or "used". You are always to take out the contexts to create the meaning to suit your need. Sorry, I don't try to explain to you any furthermore.

As I said already, the act did not explain everything very clearly. Also you have to read S18, S19, S20, S21, S24, S28, S48, S49, S50, S51, S52, S53, S54, S55, S56, S57, S58, S59 at altogether. You should not read them separately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X