Ushaka going against the CPA?

[w1z4rd]

South Africa's evolution into a nanny state continues....

If people didnt behave like children, one would not need a nanny

 

[ISP cash cow]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. If you don't like the price, simply don't pay. There is no gun to your head

Yes but if they advertise sometthing and you drive all the way down to the store to find out that the price is double. You now have wasted your petrol and time for an action from the company that is deemed illegal.

 

[Sherbang]

Maybe we do need a south African court based tv program with idiotic responses like this.

It's how it works. You can't pay for something and then complain you didn't know how much it cost - YOU JUST PAID FOR IT - how can you not know how much it cost?

 

[burn]

People make the mistake of thinking it is some new set of laws. It isn't.
You had exactly the same protections before under common law.

No, there are more rights in the CPA than the common law. In fact, the CPA goes against a number common law principles.

 

[JStrike]

Yes but if they advertise sometthing and you drive all the way down to the store to find out that the price is double. You now have wasted your petrol and time for an action from the company that is deemed illegal.

And you could probably have them take down the Advertisement as it is misleading advertising (But it is not intentionally misleading, so they aren't liable).
Hell, you could probably maybe make a case for reimbursement of your petrol, as one party has been left slightly worse off.
But good luck going to that effort for so little reward

 

[JStrike]

It's how it works. You can't pay for something and then complain you didn't know how much it cost - YOU JUST PAID FOR IT - how can you not know how much it cost?

Exactly. Just the same way if you sign something, you can't really complain afterwards (except in certain fringe cases)
Caveat Subscriptor
and Caveat Emptor (Although that is a more applicable in Property Law)

 

[mazelove]

It is simple law that everyone should be familiar with.

If something is priced at R30, but you get to the till and the cashier says it is R50, the business hasn't done anything wrong, as the Offer is only made at the till (And Acceptance occurs when you pay). The price on the label is merely an invitation to do business. No breach has occurred.

Same with some advert on their website

-10 ,i do not agree

 

[JStrike]

-10 ,i do not agree

That however is the reality of Contract Law.
Offer and Acceptance happens at the till. The label price is simply an invitation to do business and not an Offer in itself

 

[DJ...]

It is simple law that everyone should be familiar with.

If something is priced at R30, but you get to the till and the cashier says it is R50, the business hasn't done anything wrong, as the Offer is only made at the till (And Acceptance occurs when you pay). The price on the label is merely an invitation to do business. No breach has occurred.

Same with some advert on their website

I think you need to refresh yourself with regards to the legalities in terms of the CPA, in which advertisers are bound by advertised prices, except where it can be reasonably assumed to have been a blatant error. This is to prevent baiting of customers - an unethical act that you illustrated perfectly. In terms of the CPA, baiting is no longer an acceptable practice and (to repeat myself for clarity purposes), advertisers are bound by the prices and terms that they advertise, with exception to reasonably acceptable blatant errors.

As per the OP's case, there is no error in terms of their advertisement. They should, in terms of the CPA and to the best of my knowledge, be bound by their advertised pricing...

 

[DJ...]

It's how it works. You can't pay for something and then complain you didn't know how much it cost - YOU JUST PAID FOR IT - how can you not know how much it cost?

Of course, the OP cannot demand the money back because he was under no duress when he agreed to the sale, however he can complain to the NCC in terms of how Ushaka is marketing itself. In fact it can be taken up with the ASA who have to enforce laws within the framework of the CPA too. Baiting customers is no longer allowed in South Africa...

 

[JStrike]

I think you need to refresh yourself with regards to the legalities in terms of the CPA, in which advertisers are bound by advertised prices, except where it can be reasonably assumed to have been a blatant error. This is to prevent baiting of customers - an unethical act that you illustrated perfectly. In terms of the CPA, baiting is no longer an acceptable practice and (to repeat myself for clarity purposes), advertisers are bound by the prices and terms that they advertise, with exception to reasonably acceptable blatant errors.

As per the OP's case, there is no error in terms of their advertisement. They should, in terms of the CPA and to the best of my knowledge, be bound by their advertised pricing...

Baiting yes. I never said it wouldn't. I'm not sure that has ever been a legally sound thing to do...
We are not talking about baiting though

 

[JStrike]

Of course, the OP cannot demand the money back because he was under no duress when he agreed to the sale, however he can complain to the NCC in terms of how Ushaka is marketing itself. In fact it can be taken up with the ASA who have to enforce laws within the framework of the CPA too. Baiting customers is no longer allowed in South Africa...

To make a claim of baiting, you would need to prove that the customer was mislead intentionally. Which would be quite tough to prove

 

[DJ...]

To make a claim of baiting, you would need to prove that the customer was mislead intentionally. Which would be quite tough to prove

Not at all. The case the OP has is quite clearly a baiting technique in terms of the CPA. Prices were hiked without a change to their advertising while the alternatives were negated. The terms and prices have significantly changed, without error and without informing their customer base adequately.

If I advertised pumpkins for R10 each, bananas for R10 per bunch and apples for R10 per bag for a specific time-frame, I would quite clearly be baiting my customers if, without informing them or changing my advertising, I suddenly bundled them altogether within that time-frame (and inherently deviated from the advertised terms) for R28 for all as some sort of "special", all the while preventing customers from buying them individually, as advertised. Not only has the pricing changed but the terms have too. In the case of Ushaka, they did not indicate a time-frame (I'm assuming) in which case one can reasonably assume that it is valid until further notice...

 

[Drunkard #1]

To make a claim of baiting, you would need to prove that the customer was mislead intentionally. Which would be quite tough to prove

Firstly, let me just make sure you understand Law 101, because your responses indicate otherwise: Acts supersede common law. This is one of the stated purposes of an Act. The CPA supersedes the law of contract (which doesn't apply to advertising, because there is no contract yet), which is largely common law, as well as any other common law you're incorrectly relying on. It also supersedes any Act that give the consumer less protection than the CPA. As far as selling anything to consumers, the CPA is Babba, any he's just told companies to bend.

Section 30, the section of the CPA that deals with bait marketing, deliberately mentions nothing about intention. Intention isn't easy to prove, so intention is not considered when applying S. 30.

Section 23 deals with displayed priced and supersedes your dated understanding of offer and acceptance.

Section 13 clearly prohibits the bundling of goods or services, exactly as explained by the OP.

uShaka would be screwed and liable for a fine and damages if the NCC wasn't completely useless, or the OP feels like taking an untested piece of legislation to court, against a large faceless corporation.

 

[JStrike]

Firstly, let me just make sure you understand Law 101, because your responses indicate otherwise: Acts supersede common law. This is one of the stated purposes of an Act. The CPA supersedes the law of contract (which doesn't apply to advertising, because there is no contract yet), which is largely common law, as well as any other common law you're incorrectly relying on. It also supersedes any Act that give the consumer less protection than the CPA. As far as selling anything to consumers, the CPA is Babba, any he's just told companies to bend.

Section 30, the section of the CPA that deals with bait marketing, deliberately mentions nothing about intention. Intention isn't easy to prove, so intention is not considered when applying S. 30.

Section 23 deals with displayed priced and supersedes your dated understanding of offer and acceptance.

Section 13 clearly prohibits the bundling of goods or services, exactly as explained by the OP.

uShaka would be screwed and liable for a fine and damages if the NCC wasn't completely useless, or the OP feels like taking an untested piece of legislation to court, against a large faceless corporation.

Cool, I stand corrected. The specific example I gave was an example I was given in law 10 years ago at university. If the CPA has rendered that incorrect, I apologise.

And can I get your legal opinion (I assume you are a lawyer, or studying law) on section 30. If you make a mistake on your advertising, are you obliged to sell at that price? Even though there was no meeting of the minds between the two parties?

 

[FrankCastle]

The CPA will handle your query in about 96 months time.
Stand in line behind all the tools who think the CPA is the ultimate saviour of the consumer.

 

[DJ...]

And can I get your legal opinion (I assume you are a lawyer, or studying law) on section 30. If you make a mistake on your advertising, are you obliged to sell at that price? Even though there was no meeting of the minds between the two parties?

If it is a blatant error (which is open to interpretation of course) then they are not bound by the prices advertised, as a consumer would reasonably assume an error on the part of the advertiser. Blatant errors being the dropping of a zero, or the accidental omission of a comma etc. Minor errors on the other hand as far as I am aware they are bound to. It's up to them to ensure the accuracy of their own pricing and advertising...

 

[Sherbang]

OK, I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me that if you pay the updated price you've agreed to it.

If you want to complain to the CPA then don't buy it at the updated price - go get a ruling from the court that the shop must sell you the item at the advertised price. You'll show it was advertised at 10c but when you got to the till it was R10 and the CPA will rule that the shop must sell it to you at 10c. I doubt that after you've paid the R10 for it you'll get a ruling that the shop must now pay you back R9, although the the shop may get fined.

 

[DJ...]

OK, I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me that if you pay the updated price you've agreed to it.

If you want to complain to the CPA then don't buy it at the updated price - go get a ruling from the court that the shop must sell you the item at the advertised price. You'll show it was advertised at 10c but when you got to the till it was R10 and the CPA will rule that the shop must sell it to you at 10c. I doubt that after you've paid the R10 for it you'll get a ruling that the shop must now pay you back R9, although the the shop may get fined.

It doesn't apply retro-actively as far as I am aware. It is exactly as previously posted...

 

[Drunkard #1]

Cool, I stand corrected. The specific example I gave was an example I was given in law 10 years ago at university. If the CPA has rendered that incorrect, I apologise.

And can I get your legal opinion (I assume you are a lawyer, or studying law) on section 30. If you make a mistake on your advertising, are you obliged to sell at that price? Even though there was no meeting of the minds between the two parties?

I also last did law ages ago, but I don't shoot down valid questions which deal with new Acts unless I've read the Act and I'm confident I've understood it. The CPA changes everything, so it's one of those acts that I've examined very closely.

Section 30 is meant to protect consumers. It shows how much commerce has changed since 1913 (IIRC), when the case forming the old law of offer and acceptance was heard, and reflects the modern reality that a consumer and vendor hardly ever have a real "meeting of minds". The vendor advertises prices and the consumer has two choices: Take it or leave it. In effect, the consumer's mind meets the vendor's computer. Times have changed, and the law needed to change to keep up. In my opinion, the courts will decide the first case relating to S. 23 and 30 that comes before them based on the circumstances of the case. The two scenarios that I do see the consumer easily winning are intentional mistakes and negligent mistakes, and the vendor being forced to supply the product at the advertised price. The consumer should theoretically win in all scenarios, but I don't see the courts forcing a mom and pop sized company to close because of a genuine advertising mistake.

I'm a property developer (BSc (Building), BCompt), not a lawyer, and free advise off the internet is worth what you pay for it.

If it is a blatant error (which is open to interpretation of course) then they are not bound by the prices advertised, as a consumer would reasonably assume an error on the part of the advertiser. Blatant errors being the dropping of a zero, or the accidental omission of a comma etc. Minor errors on the other hand as far as I am aware they are bound to. It's up to them to ensure the accuracy of their own pricing and advertising...

Blatant errors are still binding until the vendor has complied with the requirements of the CPA, in S. 23 (9). What need to be done to comply with that section is as yet undecided.

OK, I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me that if you pay the updated price you've agreed to it.

If you want to complain to the CPA then don't buy it at the updated price - go get a ruling from the court that the shop must sell you the item at the advertised price. You'll show it was advertised at 10c but when you got to the till it was R10 and the CPA will rule that the shop must sell it to you at 10c. I doubt that after you've paid the R10 for it you'll get a ruling that the shop must now pay you back R9, although the the shop may get fined.

Common law requires an aggrieved party to mitigate their losses. If I stand to lose R 100 in the above scenario, should I not buy the item at R 10, then I must buy the item at R 10, or risk having my damages claim not awarded to the full extent of my losses.