Consumer Protection Act.

[Hard Rain]

Although I might be unable to fully understand or measure the impact of individuals on my business; I am however able to fully understand and measure the impact I have on my business.

Then why are you cheer-leading for Statist intervention into the affairs of other businesses?

"All this passionate praise of the supereminence of government action is but a poor disguise for the individual interventionists self-deification." - Ludwig von Mises

 

[BinaryJack]

Then why are you cheer-leading for Statist intervention into the affairs of other businesses?

"All this passionate praise of the supereminence of government action is but a poor disguise for the individual interventionists self-deification." - Ludwig von Mises

You forget..."The consumer is captain..."

 

[Hard Rain]

You forget..."The consumer is captain..."

That does not answer my question.

In any case, that is true, so why do they need the force of the State to "protect" them? That was the whole point of my original post in this thread..

 

[BinaryJack]

That does not answer my question.

In any case, that is true, so why do they need the force of the State to "protect" them? That was the whole point of my original post in this thread..

Because there is no other body that has enough clout to actually make the required changes.
No matter how much the "State Intervention" might go against the grain of a free and fair market, it has however become a necessity.
Businesses and corporate have become bold and brash in their greed and used money as a weapon to beat the smaller businesses into submission and some into failure. No longer will profitability be decided by the investors but by the consumer.

Businesses and corporates have to change the way business is conducted.
They will have to change the way they view the consumer and accept that business is no longer just a pass time but a commitment.

 

[za1]

reading one of my suppliers warranty statements it goes:

New goods are guarenteed according to the Manufacturers product specific warranties only and all other guarentees including common law guarentees are hereby specifically excluded.

Does that mean then that they can say the new CPA does not apply to their products as they exclude all common law guarentees?

 

[bokka1]

No, the CPA is wiping out our whole common law system that have been built up over a few hundred years.

 

[BinaryJack]

reading one of my suppliers warranty statements it goes:

New goods are guarenteed according to the Manufacturers product specific warranties only and all other guarentees including common law guarentees are hereby specifically excluded.

Does that mean then that they can say the new CPA does not apply to their products as they exclude all common law guarentees?

No.
This is where retailers or suppliers of a 3rd party product (i.e. you have not created it) have clear communication and understanding regarding the CPA and what they are liable for.
Remember you are just the agent for their product and/or service and can not be held liable for any defaults or misrepresentation of said product and/or service.

 

[BinaryJack]

Don't forget that as a retailer that sells a 3rd party product or service you are protected by the CPA as you are a consumer of said 3rd party product or service.
Retailers will be able to hold suppliers liable for poor service, product and price.

 

[za1]

What is the situation then with some of the items that I purchase, that don't have warranty, or they come with a working or 30 day warranty only? I gather according to the CPA all goods have to have at least a 6 month warranty?
I have signed that I accepted this, does that mean this is null and void now?

 

[BinaryJack]

What is the situation then with some of the items that I purchase, that don't have warranty, or they come with a working or 30 day warranty only? I gather according to the CPA all goods have to have at least a 6 month warranty?
I have signed that I accepted this, does that mean this is null and void now?

There might be a few possible outcomes to this as far as I understand and I stand to be corrected.
1) All current warrantees will stand if exceeding 6 months.
2) All current warrantees will be stand as is including voided warrantees.
3) All current warrantees will be extended to 6 months if less than 6 months.

As I have stated, I stand to be corrected.
My skills lie more on the consulting side of business and business management.

 

[Hard Rain]

Because there is no other body that has enough clout to actually make the required changes.

But I thought consumers had all the power? Guess you are a misguided interventionist after all.

No matter how much the "State Intervention" might go against the grain of a free and fair market, it has however become a necessity.

That's a matter of your opinion. Can I opt-out of the State if I disagree?

Businesses and corporate have become bold and brash in their greed and used money as a weapon to beat the smaller businesses into submission and some into failure.

Oh gosh, that sounds a lot like competition! Heavens, now when has competition ever benefited consumers?

In seriousness, obviously there is nothing wrong with competition, it only becomes a problem when firms (usually the larger and richer ones) use their money and influence to buy favours and privileges from the State. This is called rent-seeking, and I mentioned previously that the CPA tribunal will be a perfect vehicle for this practice.

I feel the need to point this out again: This practice is only possible because of State intervention. It is certainly not an inherent part of the market process.

No longer will profitability be decided by the investors but by the consumer.

This is nonsensical, both parties will ultimately influence profit.

Businesses and corporates have to change the way business is conducted. They will have to change the way they view the consumer and accept that business is no longer just a pass time but a commitment.

Why do they need the boot of the State slammed down on their necks to do this? I thought consumers were powerful? If a company treats me badly, reneges on an agreement or for any other superfluous reason I can discontinue patronizing it. This is the true power of the consumer; it does not come from some State tribunal or regulation.

 

[BinaryJack]

/snip

I think you might have misunderstood the premise of this thread.
This is not a discussion or debate on the merits of the CPA or whether this is a form of State Interventionism.
This is an informative thread about the fact that CPA will be enforced on April the 1st and how businesses of any size can adapt to the change as best they can to be profitable and successful.

You are more than welcome to create a thread to discuss those matters further but I am no longer in the frame of mind to entertain you.

 

[supersunbird]

Why do they need the boot of the State slammed down on their necks to do this? I thought consumers were powerful? If a company treats me badly, reneges on an agreement or for any other superfluous reason I can discontinue patronizing it. This is the true power of the consumer; it does not come from some State tribunal or regulation.

I don't know what country you are in but definitely not describing South Africa.

If Vodacom sells you something and you have a problem with them and cannot fix it you can't just cancel your contract and go somewhere else, you have to pay the full contract amount in advance to cancel. And if you cancel, where do you go? MTN with their serious biling issues? Cell C with their below par reception? (these might be historical references that have improved or been fixed and is just used as illustration).

There are 3 mayor supermarket chains. Where else will you buy?

Massmart owns (and owned) many different companies and some even "competed" against each other (old Dions and Game). Same with Famous Brand and fast food.

Telkom is a landline monopoly, if you get poor service, where will you go.

Competition is limited in the South African market and thus the consumer is robbed of his power. The CPA creates artificial competition.

 

[bokka1]

@ Supersunbird: If you enter a contract with Vodacom and they don't perform as per the terms of the contract you can cancel the contract without any further penalty. That is our common law today, why change it? That the CPA creates artificial competition is a load of bull, real competition creates competition.

 

[lived666]

I tried to contact an attorney yesterday to learn more about how to understand teh new act but I gather Bowman Gilfillan attorneys don't need new business or they the usual SA crap where they don't return messages.

 

[Hard Rain]

I don't know what country you are in but definitely not describing South Africa.

Of course I'm not. South Africa has an interventionist government.

If Vodacom sells you something and you have a problem with them and cannot fix it you can't just cancel your contract and go somewhere else, you have to pay the full contract amount in advance to cancel. And if you cancel, where do you go? MTN with their serious biling issues? Cell C with their below par reception? (these might be historical references that have improved or been fixed and is just used as illustration).

Have you ever wondered why there are so few cellular providers in SA? Do you think it's from want of competition? No, it's because you have to get a "license" from the State to operate one. The major cell phone companies like Vodacom and MTN even have the State owning shares in them so of course they are going to behave as a cartel, they have the State as their best friend and partner! Once again, you only have State interventionism to blame for these problems.

There are 3 mayor supermarket chains. Where else will you buy? Massmart owns (and owned) many different companies and some even "competed" against each other (old Dions and Game). Same with Famous Brand and fast food.

This is a horrible example, there is so much competition for grocery and food provision it's a wonderful thing for consumers: Checkers, Pik 'n Pay, Woolworths, Spar, gas station quick shops, stand-alone "cafes" and convenience stores, not to mention all the delis and restaurants. Of course this does not mean major players won’t attempt to get subsidies from the government or rent-seek for favours, but this is a problem with the State, not the market.

Telkom is a landline monopoly, if you get poor service, where will you go.

Just like the cellular provider example, why was Telkom (until recently) the sole provider? Oh, that's right, it used to be an actual State enterprise, but then became "private" with the State as a major shareholder whilst, simultaneously, the State controlled all the licensing and regulation! Interventionism is bad. Hello?

Competition is limited in the South African market and thus the consumer is robbed of his power. The CPA creates artificial competition.

The notion that the State needs to create artificial competition is absurd. In an open market competition will appear wherever an opportunity exists. As I have said before, the CPA is just more State interventionism, the fact that it is supposedly on the side of the consumer does not automatically make it beneficial.

BTW, thanks for conceding, Kage. Better luck next time.

 

[BinaryJack]

/snip

I request that you keep to the topic at hand or vacate the thread.
Any further derailment will be considered as spam.

 

[Ianf1]

Someone told me that this will do for consumers what the labour laws did for employees.
Now that is scary, I feel the labour laws stifle employment by small businesses. I would rather mechanise than employ more people. Will this scare off new businesses as an unintended consequence?

 

[Wall]

This Should be interesting. I am going on a training seminar hosted by East Coast Radio soon. I will post some feedback when I get back from the seminar.

If any of you have questions, please ask , and I will query it at the seminar.

 

[Hard Rain]

Someone told me that this will do for consumers what the labour laws did for employees.
Now that is scary, I feel the labour laws stifle employment by small businesses. I would rather mechanise than employ more people. Will this scare off new businesses as an unintended consequence?

Watch out, Kage might interpret this as spam ;-)