The Gauteng E-tolling Thread

[LazyLion]

 

[ToxicBunny]

Actually IzZzy is right...

They're a public company... LTD, not Pty Ltd.

 

[LazyLion]

We've had this debate before. SANRAL =/ private company.

SANRAL is incorporated by an Act of Parliament. It is a State Owned Company - which is a particular genus of companies separate from private companies. That Act of Parliament delegates to SANRAL the powers of administration of the road network.

Non state owned profit companies are divided into private companies with the suffix "Proprietary Limited" or "(Pty) Ltd"; and public companies with the suffix "Limited" or "Ltd".

This is company law 101.

Sorry, they use the suffix PTY LTD on all their correspondence.

All your "company law 101" cannot change reality.

 

[ToxicBunny]

Sorry, they use the suffix PTY LTD on all their correspondence.

All your "company law 101" cannot change reality.

SANRAL Act of 1998 is the overriding piece of documentation here.. they're a LTD, not a (Pty) Ltd

 

[Jola]

SANRAL Act of 1998 is the overriding piece of documentation here.. they're a LTD, not a (Pty) Ltd

So they are misrepresenting themselves on their correspondence ?

Is that an offence in terms of the Companies Act ?

 

[BouncyNinja]

http://hellopeter.com/sanral/complaints/e-tolls-destroying-my-future-1263847

hahahahaha

 

[Wyzak]

How does anyone sign the T&C after reading them?

Here are just a few things I quickly caught:

As far as the law allows, including as far as allowed by section 51 of the Consumer
Protection Act, we and our representatives are not responsible for any indirect loss
or indirect damages that you suffer because we or our representatives do not comply
with this Agreement.

Indirect loss is a loss that is an indirect result of not complying with the Agreement.
Indirect damages are damages that are a result of indirect loss.
For example:
We collect R50 from John’s e-toll account rather than the R20 that we should have
collected. The R30 would be a direct loss and we are responsible for giving John the
R30. However, we are not responsible for any loss or damage that results indirectly
from John not having the R30.

4. Some provisions of this Agreement survive after it ends
The following clauses, sections, rights and duties survive even though the Agreement
has ended:
a. Your duty to pay for e-toll transactions and fees, including overdue amounts, that
were incurred before the Agreement ended, or where you are the user of a motor
vehicle;
b. Your rights to raise disputes or queries;
c. All clauses limiting our responsibility and our representatives’ responsibility for
loss and damages you may suffer; and

If we send a notice to you by registered post at your address, we will be allowed to
treat it as if you have received it 10 calendar days after we posted it. This means we do
not have to prove that you did receive it after 10 calendar days.

We remain the owner of the e-tag at all times. When you (or the user of the motor
vehicle linked to your e-toll account) get the e-tag linked to your e-toll account, the
risk and responsibility of lost, stolen and faulty e-tags passes to you

There is a grace period of seven calendar days:

Every 15 days we prepare invoices and statements.

As far as the law allows, including as far as allowed by section 51 of the Consumer
Protection Act, we and our representatives are not responsible for any loss or
damages you suffer because:
a. We carry out the instructions and changes of a person that gives us the
correct PIN for your e-toll account and the correct information that we
request about your e-toll account ; or
b. A person gives us the correct PIN for your e-toll account and the correct
information that we request about your e-toll account and the person is
then able to access information on your e-toll account.

You take on the responsibility and risk if you do not keep your PIN secret

This also means that the rights and remedies you have against us and our
representatives are limited. You also do not have a claim against us or our
representatives for loss or damages you suffer if you do not keep your PIN secret.

An example of the type of risk you take on is that if someone finds out your PIN, they will be able to access information on your e-toll account and make changes to your e-toll account.

Limits to our responsibility arising from e-tags
As far as the law allows, including as far as is allowed by section 51 of the Consumer
Protection Act, we and our representatives are not responsible for any loss or
damages you suffer because of lost, stolen or faulty e-tags. This does not limit our
responsibility to replace, for free, any e-tag that is faulty where the fault was caused
by us or the manufacturer, importer, distributor or retailer of the e-tag.

 

[LazyLion]

DA protests against e-tolls

Democratic Alliance supporters gathered at the Gauteng provincial legislature in Johannesburg on Thursday to protest against e-tolling.

Scores of DA supporters, dressed in the party's blue regalia, carried placards proclaiming "vote against e-toll in 2014".

Mavis Makola said the ANC government under President Jacob Zuma was on a mission to make people poor.

"The ANC has failed its people and it's about time to vote against e-tolls," said Makola.

The mixed crowd of adults and younger people sang struggle songs and wore T-shirts with an image of the DA's Gauteng premier candidate Mmusi Maimane.

On Monday the High Court in Pretoria struck from the roll an application by the Freedom Front Plus to stop e-tolls on Gauteng freeways. The system started operating on Tuesday.


Source : Sapa /ge/jk/th/jje
Date : 05 Dec 2013 11:53

 

[ToxicBunny]

So they are misrepresenting themselves on their correspondence ?

Is that an offence in terms of the Companies Act ?

I don't know about it being an offence.

But there is no entity called South African National Roads Agency (Pty) Ltd so any official documentation with that name on it is meaningless.

 

[Mila]

How does anyone sign the T&C after reading them?

Here are just a few things I quickly caught:

I wonder what the Etroll at the Etroll station will do If I attach the contract with a pen and make her sign next to the clauses I do not agree with?

I do it with other contracts.

 

[IzZzy]

Sorry, they use the suffix PTY LTD on all their correspondence.

All your "company law 101" cannot change reality.

No, reality is the law. You think if the GSB says SANRAL is a (Pty) Ltd is it magically true? I can call SANRAL a private company till I am blue in the face and it won't become true. SANRAL themselves can call it a private company and it won't become true.

SANRAL Act of 1998 is the overriding piece of documentation here.. they're a LTD, not a (Pty) Ltd

They aren't a public company either. There are two starting genuses for profit companies: State owned company or not. That not is divided into private or public.

They are obliged to use "SOC Ltd" in their name which is the mark of a State Owned Company. It does not make them a public company however. Although they do share many features of a public company.

 

[Giarc86]

Do this with the SANRAL T&C's: http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/man-writes-own-credit-card-contract-sues-bank-for-breaking-term/

 

[ToxicBunny]

No, reality is the law. You think if the GSB says SANRAL is a (Pty) Ltd is it magically true? I can call SANRAL a private company till I am blue in the face and it won't become true. SANRAL themselves can call it a private company and it won't become true.



They aren't a public company either. There are two starting genuses for profit companies: State owned company or not. That not is divided into private or public.

They are obliged to use "SOC Ltd" in their name which is the mark of a State Owned Company. It does not make them a public company however. Although they do share many features of a public company.

But the act mentions nothing of SOC Ltd... just Ltd?

And Cipro lists them as a Public Company.

 

[Wyzak]

I wonder what the Etroll at the Etroll station will do If I attach the contract with a pen and make her sign next to the clauses I do not agree with?

I do it with other contracts.

That's the only way I will ever sign that contract. I will take a pen to the majority of it.

So if they refuse to let me pay without signing the T&C, they better accept my modified version.

Do this with the SANRAL T&C's: http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/man-writes-own-credit-card-contract-sues-bank-for-breaking-term/

Nice, wonder on what grounds the bank is suing him for fraud.

 

[IzZzy]

But the act mentions nothing of SOC Ltd... just Ltd?

And Cipro lists them as a Public Company.

Yes it does? Section 11(3)(c)(iv).

a company name, irrespective of its form or language, must end with one of the following expressions, as appropriate for the category of the particular company:......The expression 'SOC Ltd.' in the case of a state-owned company.

CIPRO's records =/ law. It may be that they do not have the capacity to reflect it as a SOC Ltd.


Because SANRAL is a state-owned company, I do not believe anything turns on the categorisation of SANRAL.

 

[ToxicBunny]

But the SANRAL Act clearly states the following :

3. (1) The Minister must take all the steps that are necessary for the formation and
incorporation of that agency as a public company with a share capital within the
meaning of the Companies Act, subject to section 2, this section and section 4.

I would happily be wrong, it just seems that the SANRAL act is very specific.

While you're here though, them marking documents with (Pty) Ltd makes those documents mostly worthless correct, because no such entity exists?

 

[IzZzy]

Ok.. I missed that part then... fanks for point it out

While you're here though, them marking documents with (Pty) Ltd makes those documents mostly worthless correct, because no such entity exists?

No, using an incorrect suffix (where that suffix is prescribed by statute) is not a ground to invalidate a contract. Companies change from private to public and vice versa all the time, that does not have the effect of invalidating previous contracts entered into with the now, incorrect, suffix.

The suffix does not effect the entity's name. They are two distinct features. An incorrect name may bring about an argument that the incorrect entity was cited.

Personally speaking, we've had no issues acting against companies where the name was completely incorrect but the registration number was correct.

 

[ToxicBunny]

No, using an incorrect suffix (where that suffix is prescribed by statute) is not a ground to invalidate a contract. Companies change from private to public and vice versa all the time, that does not have the effect of invalidating previous contracts entered into with the now, incorrect, name.

The suffix does not effect the entity's name. They are two distinct features. An incorrect name may bring about an argument that the incorrect entity was cited.

Personally speaking, we've had no issues acting against companies where the name was completely incorrect but the registration number was correct.

Fair enough...

There is a reason you lot make complicated rules, to keep us normal ppl baffled

 

[SoulTax]

Section 2(9) of the CPA:

(9) If there is an inconsistency between any provision of this Act and a provision of any Act not contemplated in subsection (8)—
(a) the provisions of both Acts apply concurrently, to the extent that it is possible to apply and comply with one of the inconsistent provisions without contravening the second; and
(b) to the extent that paragraph (a) cannot apply, the provision that extends the greater protection to a consumer prevails over the alternative provision.

That makes me smile. Pretty clear then that Sanral's act is superseded by clause b. At least in so far as the CPA is concerned. So the defense of lack of communication from Sanral can hold up in court.

 

[Jola]

That makes me smile. Pretty clear then that Sanral's act is superseded by clause b. At least in so far as the CPA is concerned. So the defense of lack of communication from Sanral can hold up in court.

Now we need someone to test this !