Fraudulently signed contract Vodacom

[Arthur]

Good for you, frustrated. I'm pleased you manage to get the matter resolved to your satisfaction.

A happy ending is always a delight.

 

[Captain-Justice]

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

S49(2)(c) the supplier must specifically draw the fact, nature and potential effect of that risk to the attention of the consumer in a manner and form that satisfies the requirements of subsections (3) to (5), and the consumer must have assented to that provision or notice by SIGNING or INITIALING the provision or otherwise acting in a manner consistent with acknowledgement of the notice, awareness of the risk and acceptance of the provision.

Lovely, as I've pointed out that Vodacon was in violation of S49(2)(c) of CPA and they realized it, hence their quick cancellation of the agreement. It's a good thing you didn't follow the advice of the doomsayers on this forum.

One more victory to the consumer. Let this be the start of the consumer tsunami! Consumers unite. Alutta continua!

 

[OGroteKoning]

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

Great news. I must say that VDC does eventually correct their mistakes, but I am frustrated with then that it must take weeks to resolve issues. They try their best to firstly get the customer to buckle to their will instead of fixing the problem immediately.

 

[homeboy]

I was a vodacom sales consultant before and after cpa. With cpa we needed to explain to customer the terms and conditions, and for what phone he sign for and how the obf process works. Thats what I did and had never complaints like this. All phones comes with a protective plastic on the screen, and I explain to customer to leave the plastic on buy a new for the next 7 days in case of an obf.

 

[Captain-Justice]

I was a vodacom sales consultant before and after cpa. With cpa we needed to explain to customer the terms and conditions, and for what phone he sign for and how the obf process works. Thats what I did and had never complaints like this. All phones comes with a protective plastic on the screen, and I explain to customer to leave the plastic on buy a new for the next 7 days in case of an obf.

Arthur take note. This is how S49 should be executed in practice.

 

[Arthur]

I know. But when it isn't it isn't automatically invalid either. Some aspects pertain to the contract itself, others to internal Vodacom procedures.

I presume Vodacom acts in good faith. You don't. I know that sales clerks make mistakes or don't follow procedures as defined. You don't see that and immediately rush to blame Vodacom as a corporate bully. You throw all sorts of nasty accusations at them, without grasp of the principles at stake.

 

[Captain-Justice]

I know. But when it isn't it isn't automatically invalid either. Some aspects pertain to the contract itself, others to internal Vodacom procedures.

I presume Vodacom acts in good faith. You don't. I know that sales clerks make mistakes or don't follow procedures as defined. You don't see that and immediately rush to blame Vodacom as a corporate bully. You throw all sorts of nasty accusations at them, without grasp of the principles at stake.

No presumption needed, the actions of the clerk tells it all. If the clerk genuinely made a mistake by not explaining to the customer as prescribed by S49, resulting in the customer not initialing the respective sections, he should have called the customer and rectified the situation and not willfully misrepresented the customer by forging his signature. Vodacon also did not show much initial commitment to rectify the situation.
On this grounds it's as clear as daylight it's a case of willful misrepresentation which is a crime. Simple.

 

[Arthur]

Ah yes. Simple. A crime you say. Judge and jury. Thanks.

 

[archibald]

This initial business confuses me.When a contract is amended in any way,surely the signature of all the parties to the contract is required to sign any amendment.

 

[Captain-Justice]

This initial business confuses me.When a contract is amended in any way,surely the signature of all the parties to the contract is required to sign any amendment.

Yes, that's a basic rule of contract law. Some people just find it difficult to grasp.

 

[Captain-Justice]

Ah yes. Simple. A crime you say. Judge and jury. Thanks.

 

[HavocXphere]

This initial business confuses me.When a contract is amended in any way,surely the signature of all the parties to the contract is required to sign any amendment.

Indeed it is. Unilateral amendments to contracts are not legal in SA (Contracts in SA require "consensus" as a basic requirement...consensus and unilateral are just not compatible).

Companies still throw that **** into every place they can though for good measure. You'd be surprised how many SA companies have blatantly void clauses in their contracts....ISPs included.

 

[KleinBoontjie]

I just wonder why the sales person who assisted the OP didn't know that there was going to be a price drop the next day. I mean, a good salesman would have told his customer to "come back tomorrow, because the price would be better". I don't think that price drops is such a big surprise/secret to people working for them, especially a day in advance all sale people should've gotten a email or some such.

 

[Arthur]

Good point, beans. It's quite evident the OP's salesperson just wasn't behaving as Vodacom expects its sales staff to conduct themselves. I am sure there are many people who will attest to the focus on training by the MNOs. They dislike this sort of problem as much as anyone else.

It's such a pity people like our Cap'n Justice are on a crusade to always blame the company itself for these sorts of issues. He refuses to see that sometimes these problems are caused by an innocent mistake, or salesperson acting dishonestly. His default presumption is that the MNOs always act in bad faith, are always bullies, and can therefore be denigrated and defamed with impunity. Such a pity.

I think there are tens of thousands of current and past Vodacom employees who are decent, honest, ethical and moral people who will, if asked, attest that Vodacom is a decent, honest, ethical and just business. Cap'n Justice and his Caped Cellular Crusaders do these employees an injustice, as he does the company itself.

 

[Captain-Justice]

I am frustrated with them that it must take weeks to resolve issues. They try their best to firstly get the customer to buckle to their will instead of fixing the problem immediately.

It's evident I'm not the only one sharing the bullying sentiment of some corporates. There must be thousands more disgruntled customers whose voices we don't hear and who are suffering in silence.

For this reason consumers should be educated on their rights and if anyone don't like it, sorry for you but just crawl back into your comfort zone and zip up.

See my post titled "Know your consumer rights!"

 

[Arthur]

Of course there are. I don't doubt it. Still doesn't make Vodacom a bully or evil.

By the way, their name has an m at the end, not an n.

 

[Captain-Justice]

The n is more appropriate ...

The reason for this is that they're conning their customers again with their Top Dog vouchers. They advertise it as a R10 000 educational voucher and you only realise the con when trying to use the voucher. If an educational product costs R9,99, you need 999 topcash to pay for it, ie. rand value x 100. This means you can only buy products to the value of R100 with the voucher which will consume 10 000 topcash and not R10 000. On enquiring with Vodacon, they referred me to the service provider. Vodacon enticed me to enter the contract with this R10 000 voucher and I entered into an agreement with them, not the service provider of the educational service.

The voucher also states it gives the user access to all grades from 4-12, but some subjects are only available from grade 11-12. Nice con, Vodacon.

Not to mention the unjust and unreasonable practice of 30 day data bundle expiry and unfair 75% early cancellation fee.

And that's why I say VodaCON deservedly earned the "n". Like it or not!

 

[ToxicBunny]

So, I will say it again.

Take them to court if you feel so strongly about this.

 

[Captain-Justice]

My submission is already with NCC re early data expiry and ASASA re false advertising and I await their response. This is not only about me, but an educational process for all bullied consumers.

 

[homeboy]

I just wonder why the sales person who assisted the OP didn't know that there was going to be a price drop the next day. I mean, a good salesman would have told his customer to "come back tomorrow, because the price would be better". I don't think that price drops is such a big surprise/secret to people working for them, especially a day in advance all sale people should've gotten a email or some such.

when i was a sales consultant for vodacom we never knew if there will be a price drop. we only recieve an email with the new prices the following morning. so don`t blame the consultant.