Fraudulently signed contract Vodacom

Paul Hjul said:
the facts are that there is no amendment and no fraud the real question relates to a cooling off period - which is a right I am supportive of in consumer credit agreements of this nature, and I believe a free market actually produces
Click to expand...

Cooling off period don't apply in this case as no direct marketing was involved.

CPA

S16(3) A consumer may rescind a transaction resulting from any DIRECT MARKETING without reason or penalty, by notice to the supplier in writing, or another recorded manner and form, within five business days after the later of the date on which—
(a) the transaction or agreement was concluded; or
(b) the goods that were the subject of the transaction were delivered to the consumer.

The issue at hand is fraud and misrepresentation by an employee as it nullifies the agreement. It's common knowledge in Labour Law that the employee is a representative of his employer and the employer can be held liable for actions of the employee. Simple.
 
Last edited:
There you go again, CJ. Corporate bullies my foot.

There is no question here that Vodacom as a corporation is acting unfairly, or bullying the OP. If anything, based on the information given by the OP, it is apparent that Vodacom itself has been deceived by an employee.

If you were truly concerned about justice you would recognise and acknowledge that companies can be and are misled by dishonest employees. As seems to be the case here, though the full facts have yet to be determined.

You have no grounds for imputing the dishonesty of this employee to the company itself. I am certain that Vodacom's management is even more eager than you to root out dishonest and unethical behaviour by employees.

We've already covered this in another related thread.

As I've said before, I am not and never have been an employee, shareholder, or supplier to Vodacom. I have no financial or other interest in Vodacom or any telecoms business. But I am passionately interested in justice and fairness. Of course consumers have rights. But so too do companies. Justice isn't a one way street. I will defend anyone unjustly treated, however unpopular they are or it makes me.

If we don't defend those unjustly accused, then who will defend us when we are the target of unjust claims? If you are selective in your stand for justice, respecting persons and not the law, then your own claim to be a defender against injustice is undermined.
 
Last edited:
See #81

I won't be as certain if I was you. If VC is so "honest", they should have cancelled the agreement immediately when the illegal tampering by their employee was detected. This was what the client has requested, why drag it out? Damn bullies!
 
Last edited:
you do know the CPA isn't the sum total of the law in South Africa:
http://www.lawsofsouthafrica.up.ac....credit-act-31-march-2011-to-date-pdf/download

s121(2)

and btw the entire question of changes or endorsements on credit agreements is covered in s116 - now if it is alleged that the staff member initialled the document as the customer then you have an instance of fraud and a very serious instance of fraud, but it would be fraud to both VC and the client and VC would investigate and if intentionally committed lay complaint and testify for the prosecution to avoid exposing themselves to a lot of risk
 
Arthur said:
There you go again, CJ. Corporate bullies my foot.

There is no question here that Vodacom as a corporation is acting unfairly, or bullying the OP. If anything, based on the information given by the OP, it is apparent that Vodacom itself has been deceived by an employee.

If you were truly concerned about justice you would recognise and acknowledge that companies can be and are misled by dishonest employees. As seems to be the case here, though the full facts have yet to be determined.

You have no grounds for imputing the dishonesty of this employee to the company itself. I am certain that Vodacom's management is even more eager than you to root out dishonest and unethical behaviour by employees.

We've already covered this in another related thread.
Click to expand...
And we don't even know that the employee was being dishonest

possible explanations:
[1] The employee has been trained as part of a checklist to initial after the explain certain sections, this is a memorial annotation and should appear on the copy of the contract held by the store and not appear on the contract copy given to the customer, and to prevent problems be written in pencil or a different ink to any signing. It is exactly the same as taking your copy of a contract and highlighting things or drawing a penis in the margin;
[2] The employee and client are supposed to endorse and the employee failed to get the endorsement by the client
[3] The employee erroneously thought that they should sign when in fact the client should
[4] The employee committed fraud to both the client and VCs prejudice
[5] Vodacom has a practice of abuse and have directed their agents to implement this practice - very serious allegation and no evidence has surfaced
 
Captain-Justice said:
See #81

I won't be as certain if I was you. If VC is so "honest", they should have cancelled the agreement immediately when the illegal tampering by their employee was detected. This was what the client has requested, why drag it out? Damn bullies!
Click to expand...
your syllogism fails because it begs the question. You are judging before you know the facts.
 
Captain-Justice said:
Agree, but then the customer will have grounds to have the agreement declared null and void.
Click to expand...
The consumer could then exercise a cooling off period - which is what I have already said

BUT the cooling off period premise would not get the customer what they want which is the lower of two prices
 
now if anybody actually believed him and their impression of Vodacom were to change we would have a classic case of defamation
 
Ah well.

Enough of this idle chatter. Now to read an interesting journal article. Two taps and CJ evaporates from my phone's screen. :)

Tomorrow is another day. G' night.

Edit: Fix auto text errors
 
Last edited:
I think Arthur is a time traveller, to be honest...one of the Knights of the Round Table, perhaps. Hark, what syllogism lieth before me? Thou snake of a thousand tongues..be off henceforth, ne'er to return to these cursed shores......... (no offence)
 
I think the OP should do the honorable thing and use the Chewbacca defense!

That should get your out of this mess!
 
UPDATE: Vodacom's processed the cancellation request today and it usually takes 24 hours, my account has also been credited with the amount deducted due to the package added. Following this, I can choose a new package with a new phone. Vodacom's legal department is still investigating the rest of the issues but at least VC stepped up and impressed me :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X