Scary terms and conditions

Have there been any cases in S.A where any of these terms & conditions of the above companies have been enforced.

Indeed Caveat Subscriptor.
 
My initial insurance company "forced" me to go with Tracker, but looking at Tracker's amended t's and c's, I'm definitely going to have a word with the insurance company and request a change (at their cost) or "threaten" to take my insurance needs elsewhere.

Mine tried to force me too, I had a chat with them and you really don't HAVE to take it if you don't want (they tell you it "brings your premiums down"), you can opt out of it if you pay them more. In my case it was R20/month more or something small. I'm sure they have a deal with tracker to make kickbacks, which is why they try so hard to force it on their customers.
 
Even without CPA, law of contract provides a legal obligation to highlight unusual terms and conditions.
The privacy and limited liability clauses are to be expected and would probably hold up, however OLX's penalties would be unexpected and they would need to prove that they specifically highlighted these to the user for them to be valid.

The privacy clause will be regulated by the POPI Act, when it's enacted (it's already approved). This prohibits ANY use of personal information that isn't specifically agreed to by the consumer. A blanket "all you base are belong to us" clause is illegal.

The limited liability clause is regulated by the whole CPA. For example Section 51:

1)A supplier must not make a transaction or agreement subject to any term or condition if—

a)its general purpose or effect is to—

i)defeat the purposes and policy of this Act;

ii)mislead or deceive the consumer; or

iii)subject the consumer to fraudulent conduct;

b)it directly or indirectly purports to—

i)waive or deprive a consumer of a right in terms of this Act;

ii)avoid a supplier’s obligation or duty in terms of this Act;

iii)set aside or override the effect of any provision of this Act; or

iv)authorise the supplier to—

aa)do anything that is unlawful in terms of this Act; or

bb)fail to do anything that is required in terms of this Act;

c)it purports to—

i)limit or exempt a supplier of goods or services from liability for any loss directly or indirectly attributable to the gross negligence of the supplier or any person acting for or controlled by the supplier;

ii)constitute an assumption of risk or liability by the consumer for a loss contemplated in subparagraph (i); or

iii)impose an obligation on a consumer to pay for damage to, or otherwise assume the risk of handling, any goods displayed by the supplier, except to the extent contemplated in section 18(1);

And section 54:

1)When a supplier undertakes to perform any services for or on behalf of a consumer, the consumer has a right to—

a)the timely performance and completion of those services, and timely notice of any unavoidable delay in the performance of the services;

b)the performance of the services in a manner and quality that persons are generally entitled to expect;

c)the use, delivery or installation of goods that are free of defects and of a quality that persons are generally entitled to expect, if any such goods are required for performance of the services; and

d)the return of any property or control over any property of the consumer in at least as good a condition as it was when the consumer made it available to the supplier for the purpose of performing such services,

having regard to the circumstances of the supply, and any specific criteria or conditions agreed between the supplier and the consumer before or during the performance of the services.



2)If a supplier fails to perform a service to the standards contemplated in subsection (1), the consumer may require the supplier to either—

a)remedy any defect in the quality of the services performed or goods supplied; or

b)refund to the consumer a reasonable portion of the price paid for the services performed and goods supplied, having regard to the extent of the failure.

My bold.

People should realise where OLX is based and to which regulations it must abide to, there terms are pretty much standard within their law.





The same with this OLX clause:



The above have nothing to do with the CPA, it is FRAUD, spamming, cloning... in the end the mechanisms are produced to protect the intellectual property and the law-abiding user's experience. So don't reproduce the OLX brand and website. There will also be legal proceedings enclosed with the above. Mybroadband was not clear on this matter as seen in the above posts, as these terms are introduced to combat abuse, especially within online listings.

Then people complain in these threads that they are being scammed, unethical trade, bad business practices... by SA-based websites which is listing enabled.

Mybroadband have their own terms covering "Website Intellectual Property". I'm sure MyBroadBand will held any person responsible breaching their terms liable to any costs incurred.

Fraud is a criminal matter, and the criminal case precludes any civil compensation. A calculation of damages would need to be done by a court, in a separate civil case, on the basis of delict, not contract. Those penalties can only be applied if there is a legally enforceable contract in place. And a contract which breaches the CPA isn't legally enforceable.

You do know that the OLX terms is under jurisdiction of the Office of Foreign Asset Control, U.S. Department of Treasury?

If they're operating in SA, the CPA applies, in terms of Section 5:

1)This Act applies to-

a)every transaction occurring within the Republic,
unless it is exempted by subsection (2), or in terms of subsections (3) and (4);

b)the promotion of any goods or services, or of the supplier of any goods or services, within the Republic, unless-

i)those goods or services could not reasonably be the subject of a transaction to which this Act applies in terms of paragraph (a); or

ii)the promotion of those goods or services has been exempted in terms of subsections (3) and (4);

c)goods or services that are supplied or performed in terms of a transaction to which this Act applies, irrespective of whether any of those goods or services are offered or supplied in conjunction with any other goods or services, or separate from any other goods or services; and

d)goods that are supplied in terms of a transaction that is exempt from the application of this Act, but only to the extent provided for in subsection (5).

Any attempt to circumvent that is a breach of Section 51 (above), which is an offence and could make them liable for a fine up to a maximum of 10% of their turnover or R 1 000 000, whichever is the greater.

Like I said, as for as our courts concerned are those clauses aren't worth the paper they're written on. And I doubt the US is going to demand extradition in a civil case, so altogether worthless.
 
Last edited:
The privacy clause will be regulated by the POPI Act, when it's enacted (it's already approved). This prohibits ANY use of personal information that isn't specifically agreed to by the consumer. A blanket "all you base are belong to us" clause is illegal.

The limited liability clause is regulated by the whole CPA. For example Section 51:



And section 54:



My bold.



Fraud is a criminal matter, and the criminal case precludes any civil compensation. A calculation of damages would need to be done by a court, in a separate civil case, on the basis of delict, not contract. Those penalties can only be applied if there is a legally enforceable contract in place. And a contract which breaches the CPA isn't legally enforceable.



If they're operating in SA, the CPA applies, in terms of Section 5:



Any attempt to circumvent that is a breach of Section 51 (above), which is an offence and could make them liable for a fine up to a maximum of 10% of their turnover or R 1 000 000, whichever is the greater.

Like I said, as for as our courts concerned are those clauses aren't worth the paper they're written on. And I doubt the US is going to demand extradition in a civil case, so altogether worthless.

Tell me, where are OLX operating in SA?

Again, the OLX T's & C's (and its policies) are regulated by the jurisdiction of the Office of Foreign Asset Control, U.S. Department of Treasury. I don't think you understand regulations, especially per region. Where is the CPA applicable? PoPI don’t play a role here and while PoPI is approved it is yet to be initiated.

South Africa have no jurisdiction over OLX. You utilise a foreign service within your private capacity.

Here you go:

http://www.olx.co.za/terms.php

You understand and agree that to the extent you are located in the United States, you will utilize the Service in compliance with any laws, regulations, and guidelines that may be under the jurisdiction of the Office of Foreign Asset Control, U.S. Department of Treasury.

Rudolph needs to be clear on this matter. The other companies in mention within the article are South African registered entities.
 
Mine tried to force me too, I had a chat with them and you really don't HAVE to take it if you don't want (they tell you it "brings your premiums down"), you can opt out of it if you pay them more. In my case it was R20/month more or something small. I'm sure they have a deal with tracker to make kickbacks, which is why they try so hard to force it on their customers.

Mine tried the same thing with me..

Offered me X premium if I had tracker on my car (which would have cost R99 per month), told them to quote me without the tracker, it was an extra R34 per month....

Asked my broker why the insurance company thought I would take the tracker option if it would end up costing me more every month in total. His reponse was "so that you can get your car back".. told him straight up, the if my car gets stolen I don't WANT it back... they usually fsck the cars up quite badly.
 
His reponse was "so that you can get your car back".. told him straight up, the if my car gets stolen I don't WANT it back... they usually fsck the cars up quite badly.

Yeah... it's because "so that WE can get your car back [and don't have to buy a new one]"

Unless the savings are the same as the tracker cost, they can go shove it - they benefit from it, not me.
 
I think lawyers try to be too smart and end up saying the opposite to what they want to say.
I did business with a contracting company once and got their contractors agreement that said that "this agreement" was the only legal agreement between myself and them, but then they gave me a bunch of separate agreements to sign for different aspects of the deal we were doing. This means that in a court of law, the other agreements mean nothing can cannot be held against me.
These agreements need simplification. Basically if a word as complex as "simplification" appears in an agreement, it should be made null and void until phrases such as "null and void" and changed to "YOU CANT HAZ!" or something the general public will understand.
Our company has a policy of going over every agreement, regardless of what its for, with a fine tooth comb.
 
Tell me, where are OLX operating in SA?

Again, the OLX T's & C's (and its policies) are regulated by the jurisdiction of the Office of Foreign Asset Control, U.S. Department of Treasury. I don't think you understand regulations, especially per region. Where is the CPA applicable? PoPI don’t play a role here and while PoPI is approved it is yet to be initiated.

South Africa have no jurisdiction over OLX. You utilise a foreign service within your private capacity.

Here you go:

http://www.olx.co.za/terms.php



Rudolph needs to be clear on this matter. The other companies in mention within the article are South African registered entities.

You seem to struggle with reading:

1)This Act applies to-

a)every transaction occurring within the Republic
, unless it is exempted by subsection (2), or in terms of subsections (3) and (4);

b)the promotion of any goods or services, or of the supplier of any goods or services, within the Republic, unless-

i)those goods or services could not reasonably be the subject of a transaction to which this Act applies in terms of paragraph (a); or

ii)the promotion of those goods or services has been exempted in terms of subsections (3) and (4);

c)goods or services that are supplied or performed in terms of a transaction to which this Act applies, irrespective of whether any of those goods or services are offered or supplied in conjunction with any other goods or services, or separate from any other goods or services; and

d)goods that are supplied in terms of a transaction that is exempt from the application of this Act, but only to the extent provided for in subsection (5).
 
You seem to struggle with reading:

Go read up on cross-border transactions.

Taking in account the OLX "VIOLATION OF TERMS AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES" clause:

VIOLATION OF TERMS AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
Please report any violations of the Terms that you become aware of by contacting us using the link at the bottom of the OLX homepage at www.olx.co.za. Any failure to act by OLX with respect to a breach by you or others does not waive our right to act with respect to subsequent or similar breaches by you or others. You understand and agree that, because damages are often difficult or impossible to quantify, if actual damages cannot be reasonably calculated then you will be liable to pay OLX the following as liquidated damages (and not a penalty):

a. If OLX establishes any limits on the frequency with which you may access the Service, or terminates your access to or use of the Service, you agree to pay OLX ninety nine dollars ($99) for (i) each message posted in excess of such limits or (ii) for each day on which you access OLX in excess of such limits, whichever is higher.

b. If you post a message that (1) impersonates any person or entity; (2) falsely states or otherwise misrepresents your affiliation with a person or entity; or (3) that includes personal or identifying information about another person without that person's explicit consent, you agree that OLX in its sole discretion may disclose identifying information about you to the victim, and that should OLX bring a claim against you in court, that you will pay OLX one thousand one hundred dollars ($1,100) for each such message.

c. If you are a Posting Agent that uses the Service in violation of these Terms, in addition to any liquidated damages under Section 20(e) below you agree to pay OLX ninety nine dollars ($99) for each and every item you post in violation of these Terms. A Posting Agent will also be deemed an agent of the party engaging the Posting Agent to access the Service, and such party (by engaging the Posting Agent in violation of these Terms) agrees to pay OLX an additional ninety nine dollars ($99) for each item posted by the Posting Agent on behalf of such party in violation of these Terms.

d. If you use OLX e-mail addresses or computer systems to send unsolicited e-mail advertisements to OLX e-mail addresses or any other party, you agree to pay OLX thirty dollars ($30) for each such e-mail.

e. If you post messages in violation of these Terms, other than as described above, you agree to pay OLX ninety nine dollars ($99) for each such message. Notwithstanding the foregoing, OLX may, in its sole and absolute discretion, issue a warning before assessing damages pursuant to this Section 20(e).

f. If you aggregate, copy, display, mirror, reproduce, or otherwise exploit for any purpose any Content (except for your own Content) in violation of these Terms without OLX's express written permission, you agree to pay OLX ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each day on which you engage in such conduct.

If none of the foregoing clauses (a) – (f) are applicable, you agree to pay OLX’s actual damages, to the extent such actual damages can be reasonably calculated. Notwithstanding any other provision of these Terms, OLX retains the right to seek equitable remedies, including without limitation, specific performance of any term contained in these Terms, or a preliminary or permanent injunction against the breach or threatened breach of any such term or in aid of the exercise of any power granted in these Terms, or any combination thereof, without the necessity of posting a bond.

Where do the CPA apply to the above sections (a) – (f)?

Do the CPA protect you when you spam, steal, impersonate, etc. how about against liquidated damages?

Yes, I'm struggling to understand, enlighten me by taking the above terms into account on which this topic is based?

Read this:

http://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/...-protection-act-and-cross-border-transactions

This application of the CPA is important to bear in mind when determining where a transaction takes place. Two important questions arise in relation to cross-border transactions. The first is: can one contract out of the CPA by making the transaction governed by a foreign law? It is common-place in transaction contracts to have a governing law clause. This clause will state that the transaction must be interpreted and governed by the law of a particular country.

The second: does the CPA apply in the case of a transaction occurring outside of South Africa but with a governing law clause making the transaction subject to South African law?

The wording of the CPA (“every transaction occurring within the Republic”) specifically brings any transaction of the type contemplated in the former query within the ambit of the CPA. Whilst the parties have elected to have the transaction governed by foreign law, certain parts of the transaction will still be subject to the CPA.

Read the entire article in the link.
 
I wonder how many of these t&c's will hold up in court in SA.

I don't think OLX will hunt you down in SA, Naspers might take you on with reasonable calculated "actual" damages in relation with sections (a) – (f). The OLX terms really only address severe issues, no "normal" user will ever be charged - I can see desperate people signing up with "money making" systems spamming OLX, under these conditions they will delete the ad, and in relation with repeated actions by the "user" block the IP and delete the registered account.

The rest is questionable:

- Tracker
- Telkom
- Vodacom
- Sanral

Though Telkom do provide us with rebate when the issue is technical related.
 
Go read up on cross-border transactions.

Taking in account the OLX "VIOLATION OF TERMS AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES" clause:



Where do the CPA apply to the above sections (a) – (f)?

The **** are you on about? And look up the term "LIQUIDATED DAMAGES". 1. It doesn't mean what they think it means, and 2. Just because they call something liquidated damages, doesn't mean they are liquidated damages.

Do the CPA protect you when you spam, steal, impersonate, etc. how about against liquidated damages?

Stop trying to avoid the issue. Whether the Act applies or not has sweet **** all to with this.

Yes, I'm struggling to understand, enlighten me by taking the above terms into account on which this topic is based?

Read this:

http://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/...-protection-act-and-cross-border-transactions



Read the entire article in the link.

From your own link:

On a literal interpretation, the CPA would not apply as the transaction did not occur in South Africa. However, the literal interpretation may not be adhered to by the South African courts who could extend the CPA to a transaction involving a South African consumer in order to protect the consumer’s rights even though the transaction did not occur in South Africa. The CPA gives the courts the ability to make innovative orders to promote the spirit and purpose of the CPA. This means that the courts could take the approach that the parties intended to be subject to all of South African law, regardless of the fact the transaction did not occur in South Africa, and such voluntary assumption causes the transaction to occur in South Africa and the CPA to apply.

If they try to enforce their contract in a South African court, they'll be told to **** right off. Look at the Pigg's Peak ruling. If they try to enforce it in an American court, they've got **** all chance of serving a summons, let alone getting their victim to appear.

The contract is worthless.
 
Last edited:
IANAL but OLX are operating under the co.za TLD which should bind them to some of our laws. Also, as mentioned by others once these contracts are tested in a court most of them will fail.

I love the idea of crossing out parts of a contract you disagree with and signing next to it before handing it back to the supplier. I guess they have too many contracts to care about each individual one.

OT: There was a case not too long ago about some guy that couldn't repay a home loan I think and one of the big banks took legal action against him and lost because the contract wasn't simple enough to be understood by a layman.
 
The **** are you on about? And look up the term "LIQUIDATED DAMAGES". 1. It doesn't mean what they think it means, and 2. Just because they call something liquidated damages, doesn't mean they are liquidated damages.

Because OLX will only penalise you R100,000 per day when you abuse their service, what do the CPA have to do with the customer abusing a "gratis" service, did you even read the OLX clause I posted and what the penalties covers?

Stop trying to avoid the issue. Whether the Act applies or not has sweet **** all to with this.

As per my above remark.

From your own link:

Selective quoting (and bold).

Will a transaction occurring outside of South Africa be subject to the CPA if the transaction has a South African law governing clause?

On a literal interpretation, the CPA would not apply as the transaction did not occur in South Africa. However, the literal interpretation may not be adhered to by the South African courts who could extend the CPA to a transaction involving a South African consumer in order to protect the consumer’s rights even though the transaction did not occur in South Africa. The CPA gives the courts the ability to make innovative orders to promote the spirit and purpose of the CPA. This means that the courts could take the approach that the parties intended to be subject to all of South African law, regardless of the fact the transaction did not occur in South Africa, and such voluntary assumption causes the transaction to occur in South Africa and the CPA to apply.

Whilst extending the CPA beyond its application to transactions occurring in South Africa would seem to be an act beyond the powers of courts and the CPA, it cannot be conclusively stated that such an extension will not happen (whether it is correct or not). The courts strong powers could see them deciding that the CPA will apply to offshore transactions that have voluntary been subjected to South African law so as to protect the South African consumer and promote the CPA.

If they try to enforce their contract in a South African court, they'll be told to **** right off. Look at the Pigg's Peak ruling. If they try to enforce it in an American court, they've got **** all chance of serving a summons, let alone getting their victim to appear.

Piggy Peak as about a Swaziland-based casino to bid its operations declared legal in SA. Go abuse any "Foreign Service" within SA and see where you end up.

The contract is worthless.

Why don't you go test the system by abusing "Foreign Services" and report back to me.
 
Because OLX will only penalise you R100,000 per day when you abuse their service, what do the CPA have to do with the customer abusing a "gratis" service, did you even read the OLX clause I posted and what the penalties covers?

The CPA applies because a company is trying conclude an abusive contract with a consumer. The courts don't take kindly to companies acting as judge, jury and executioner, so they won't particularly care whether the consumers actions offend your sense of morality. Awarding of punitive penalties is reserved for the courts. Any contract attempting to circumvent this is illegal.

As per my above remark.

As per my above remark.

Selective quoting (and bold).

The courts strong powers could see them deciding that the CPA will apply to offshore transactions that have voluntary been subjected to South African law so as to protect the South African consumer and promote the CPA.

Your bold.

Piggy Peak as about a Swaziland-based casino to bid its operations declared legal in SA. Go abuse any "Foreign Service" within SA and see where you end up.

Piggs Peak was a "foreign" company trying to circumvent South African law on the same basis as OLX. Piggs Peak got their ass handed to them, and so would OLX.

Why don't you go test the system by abusing "Foreign Services" and report back to me.

Why don't you try to enforce an abusive contract and report back to me.
 
The CPA applies because a company is trying conclude an abusive contract with a consumer. The courts don't take kindly to companies acting as judge, jury and executioner, so they won't particularly care whether the consumers actions offend your sense of morality. Awarding of punitive penalties is reserved for the courts. Any contract attempting to circumvent this is illegal.

Their terms address the "the user" abusing the OLX service, read sections (a) – (f), this you ignored. Show me where in the OLX terms are the sections (a) – (f) abusive towards "the user" as the terms was quoted by me in post #30?

Your bold.

Whilst extending the CPA beyond its application to transactions occurring in South Africa would seem to be an act beyond the powers of courts and the CPA, it cannot be conclusively stated that such an extension will not happen (whether it is correct or not). The courts strong powers could see them deciding that the CPA will apply to offshore transactions that have voluntary been subjected to South African law so as to protect the South African consumer and promote the CPA.

Where is this transaction taking place, where is it delivered online (digitally), do OLX then voluntarily apply to the CPA? The transaction needs to take place within SA to have the CPA apply. This transaction in mention takes place in the USA.

Piggs Peak was a "foreign" company trying to circumvent South African law on the same basis as OLX. Piggs Peak got their ass handed to them, and so would OLX.

Where is the OLX terms circumventing SA law when it abides to compliance with any laws, regulations, and guidelines that may be under the jurisdiction of the Office of Foreign Asset Control, U.S. Department of Treasury. <- where the transaction takes place.

Why don't you try to enforce an abusive contract and report back to me.

You stated the OLX terms to be abusive, not me. BTW, our terms are updated to agree with the SA standards and SA law, no policies stating otherwise.
 
Their terms address the "the user" abusing the OLX service, read sections (a) – (f), this you ignored. Show me where in the OLX terms are the sections (a) – (f) abusive towards "the user" as the terms was quoted by me in post #30?

I honestly have no ****ing clue what you're on about. The CPA applies if a contract is involved, whether you call him a user or a client or a victim (I will use the latter, since he is the victim of an abusive corporate.) If no contract applies, then the fine print is moot. This really isn't rocket surgery.

Where is this transaction taking place, where is it delivered online (digitally), do OLX then voluntarily apply to the CPA? The transaction needs to take place within SA to have the CPA apply. This transaction in mention takes place in the USA.

The Piggs peak ruling, for your connivance:

[34] According to these facts the stake is irrevocably placed on the outcome of the
player’s chosen gambling game (and the gamble is under way) at the moment that he or
she activates the ‘Spin’ button (or its equivalent). The fact that any or all of the actions
described by Prof Hazelhurst may occur in Swaziland after or as a consequence of that
activation is, it seems to me, irrelevant to the central issue as none of those actions
changes the reality that the player at his or her computer has in South Africa committed
himself or herself to staking money on the chance.
That takes place where the player is (in
South Africa) and not in Swaziland.
[35] Such an interpretation satisfies the aims of the statute: the prospective player is
‘seduced’ in South Africa, he or she takes and activates the crucial decision to gamble
here, he or she is impoverished here;
the internet casino intrudes upon the field of licensed
operators here and it does so without payment of dues to the State. The legislature is
concerned with substance, not form, and if gambling takes place in South Africa it is of no
consequence what means are employed to facilitate it and whether those means are
employed outside the country.

[36] Moreover the appellant ‘makes’ such games ‘available’ to prospective players in
South Africa.
The purpose of the Act is to control the effect of gambling on South Africans
in South Africa whatever the source of the temptation may be. In so far as the intention of
the appellant is to use the internet casino to introduce South Africans to the ‘delights’ of
direct gambling from their homes (or places of business) it places no strain upon the
ordinary meaning of the expression to treat the placing and maintenance on the web of an
internet casino which is readily accessible to such persons as acts of making gambling
available in South Africa. The appellant’s advertising on its web-site informs the interested
viewer that
‘In just a few easy steps you can start playing all your favourite casino games from the comfort of
your own home’ and
15
‘Imagine being able to enjoy all your favourite slot machine games in your own personal cozy
abode where you can just relax and be at home.’
Although these statements no doubt contain some hyperbole, they also identify an
essential truth in what the appellant is doing: the opportunity to gamble is being offered to
the would-be player wherever it finds him or her with a computer link to the internet, which
usually means in the home or office.

Where is the OLX terms circumventing SA law when it abides to compliance with any laws, regulations, and guidelines that may be under the jurisdiction of the Office of Foreign Asset Control, U.S. Department of Treasury. <- where the transaction takes place.

It is circumventing the CPA, which protects the rights of South African consumers. Our courts have ruled that the transaction takes place in the home of the victim, despite your best attempts to prevent that.

You stated the OLX terms to be abusive, not me. BTW, our terms are updated to agree with the SA standards and SA law, no policies stating otherwise.

Well I guess that "our" explains this whole argument. You're trying ye olde FUD technique to protect your employer. No amount of bull**** is going to change the fact that OLX's contract is illegal and unenforceable.
 
I honestly have no ****ing clue what you're on about. The CPA applies if a contract is involved, whether you call him a user or a client or a victim (I will use the latter, since he is the victim of an abusive corporate.) If no contract applies, then the fine print is moot. This really isn't rocket surgery.

Where did OLX abuse the contract, you stated the OLX terms to be illegal and abusive, show me the evidence?

Note, when you register on OLX:

http://www.olx.co.za/register.php


You understand and agree that to the extent you are located in the United States, you will utilize the Service in compliance with any laws, regulations, and guidelines that may be under the jurisdiction of the Office of Foreign Asset Control, U.S. Department of Treasury.

The Piggs peak ruling, for your connivance:

Online gambling is still illegal in SA, thus the Swaziland-based casino operator made a bid to be legal within SA, you know how the case was concluded. I don't have a clue why this is even included with your argument.

It is circumventing the CPA, which protects the rights of South African consumers. Our courts have ruled that the transaction takes place in the home of the victim, despite your best attempts to prevent that.

Again, where did OLX circumvent SA law when I have to state again that OLX abides to compliance with any laws, regulations, and guidelines that may be under the jurisdiction of the Office of Foreign Asset Control, U.S. Department of Treasury. This where the service is located, where the transaction is taking place and where third-party vendors such as PayPal are transacted with.

Well I guess that "our" explains this whole argument. You're trying ye olde FUD technique to protect your employer. No amount of bull**** is going to change the fact that OLX's contract is illegal and unenforceable.

Why don't you request RPM to do an article supported by a legal perspective to state the OLX contract illegal, and where am I protecting an employer, are you discrediting me?
 
Where did OLX abuse the contract, you stated the OLX terms to be illegal and abusive, show me the evidence?

Note, when you register on OLX:

http://www.olx.co.za/register.php

Online gambling is still illegal in SA, thus the Swaziland-based casino operator made a bid to be legal within SA, you know how the case was concluded. I don't have a clue why this is even included with your argument.

No, Piggs Peak didn't "made a bid to be legal within SA", they tried the same bull**** OLX is trying. The court ruled on the jurisdiction issue. The transaction takes place where the victim is located. End of story. That's why the case is relevant.

Again, where did OLX circumvent SA law when I have to state again that OLX abides to compliance with any laws, regulations, and guidelines that may be under the jurisdiction of the Office of Foreign Asset Control, U.S. Department of Treasury. This where the service is located, where the transaction is taking place and where third-party vendors such as PayPal are transacted with.

Not according to South African law. If you want to enforce your abusive contract in a South African court, they will follow the precedent set in the Piggs Peak case and deem that the transaction occurred in South Africa, and then beat the living **** out of you with the CPA.

Why don't you request RPM to do an article supported by a legal perspective to state the OLX contract illegal, and where am I protecting an employer, are you discrediting me?

I did. In my first comment. And you used the word "our" - What is your association with OLX if it isn't your employer.
 
Last edited:
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter