Know your consumer rights!

My understanding would be more in line with Greig, however in fact section 17(2) does specifically refer to Reservations, Bookings or Orders this being for goods or services ie not just fixed term contracts.

Therefore the "reasonable" test would apply to an advance booking with a hotel as the intent of the act is to protect the consumer from unscrupulous operators or unreasonable terms and conditions.
 
O I agree that 100% cancellation fee is unreasonable, but I don't see it being capable of being addressed by the CPA and the NCC's approach towards changing industry practice and that because it is an industry practice any given hotel can escape and manner of sanction.

I do feel that forfeiting 20% of your deposit and receiving the refund in the form of a voucher would be reasonable - and here the cancellation is on short notice and to be entirely honest even an absolute last minute cancellation of a single room is of limited absolute harm to the hotel based on the business model of the hospitality industry.
 
I think either way this would only be an applying of our minds to the question as we all realise the CPA is another law without teeth.
I recently even found out that they no longer hold mediation meetings which is something they did at the start. So how exactly would an aggrieved consumer now get resolution?
 
O I agree that 100% cancellation fee is unreasonable, but I don't see it being capable of being addressed by the CPA and the NCC's approach towards changing industry practice and that because it is an industry practice any given hotel can escape and manner of sanction.

Can't disagree with you there. The NCC has been absolutely hopeless.

So, bottom line NWI: yes, the hotel is probably in contravention of the Act, but good luck getting that enforced!

One last point for thought: suppliers can't charge cancellation fees for advance bookings if the reason for the cancellation is due to the death or hospitalisation of the person for whose benefit the booking was made. I wouldn't for one moment encourage fraudulent behaviour, but maybe you have friends or family members who are well-connected in medical circles ...
 
Consumer’s right to cancel advance reservation, booking or order
17. (1) This section does not apply to a franchise agreement, or in respect of any special-order goods.
(2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), a consumer has the right to cancel any advance booking, reservation or order for any goods or services to be supplied.
(3) A supplier who makes a commitment or accepts a reservation to supply goods or services on a later date may—
(a) require payment of a reasonable deposit in advance; and
(b) impose a reasonable charge for cancellation of the order or reservation, subject to subsection (5).
(4) For the purposes of this section, a charge is unreasonable if it exceeds a fair amount in the circumstances, having regard to—
(a) the nature of the goods or services that were reserved or booked;
(b) the length of notice of cancellation provided by the consumer;
(c) the reasonable potential for the service provider, acting diligently, to find an alternative consumer between the time of receiving the cancellation notice and the time of the cancelled reservation; and
(d) the general practice of the relevant industry.
(5) A supplier may not impose any cancellation fee in respect of a booking, reservation or order if the consumer is unable to honour the booking, reservation or order because of the death or hospitalisation of the person for whom, or for whose benefit the booking, reservation or order was made.
 
I don't know if it was ever discussed in this thread, so here goes:

I bought headphones (Brand A) from a company (Company A), who was selling stuff at rAge, for my little brother which he chose. Brand A headphones comes in a blister pack, which requires you to use a sharp implement to open it. We buy the product and later head to our guesthouse. Looking closer, Brand A headphones says it was made for console, but doesn't specify how it is limited to use with this console. Knowing that some headphones have a breakout cable and send data and power over USB, we open it to inspect the because the package isn't clear about that. Murphy's law strikes and the headphones have no capability of being used with a PC.

Early today we head to a store for Company A and ask for a refund. Company A employees call a manager and then regional manager, both who say that because the blister package is open they can't refund because they can't resell. They say I can't return the product through the avenues the CPA provides (couldn't properly inspect product without breaking package, product not fit for purpose) and prefer to lay blame with us rather than take the product, which otherwise is undamaged and probably works, and give me a refund. Credit notes don't work because Company A has stores far away from my home residence.

What do?
 

Put it down to school fees. The thing said it was suitable for a console: you nevertheless opened it: if you had doubts you should have waited and contacted the selling company before wrecking the packaging. It is not their fault you chose the wrong thing.
 
I have always had an issue with that type of packaging - there is no way to open it "nicely" and there is no way do repack it properly if there is a problem. It is a cheap way to package and manufacturers/resellers think that a damaged box/package constitutes excessive usage or something. Even Vodacom bitched and moaned when I took a broken modem back and saw the box was torn. Why should that make a difference - after long arguments, I wrote to the then CEO/[whatever] of VDC and the issue was resolved.

Company A can have the item repacked and transfer serial numbers on the box/packaging if there are any to transfer imo. They should be reasonable and if they are, they would look for a way to assist. Return business and word-of-mouth are 2 powerful and cheap means of advertising. Difficult one to call. Where is @Captain-Justice ?
 
Put it down to school fees. The thing said it was suitable for a console: you nevertheless opened it: if you had doubts you should have waited and contacted the selling company before wrecking the packaging. It is not their fault you chose the wrong thing.

I'm 25 and don't have kids. "Put it down to school fees", ha ha. Very funny.

Consider this: Turtle Beach's PX5 never said it was PC-compatible on the packaging (its in the manual, you have to open the box to figure that out), but the optical audio port on the transmitter allowed it to work properly for sound and a Bluetooth dongle would make it work for transmitting microphone audio. Razer's Carcharias only advertises functionality with the PC and Xbox 360, yet it was also PS3-compatible (needs an adapter, but it does work). Not every package is clear about a product's compatibility and I honestly didn't expect the product I bought to not be PC compatible.

Blaming me for choosing the wrong thing is all well and good, but I was under the impression that it was PC-compatible judging by the language on the back of the box saying that it was "USB-powered". I expected that they'd only offer a credit or a refund with a reasonabe handling fee, but outright refusal is a first for me.
 
Last edited:
Early today we head to a store for Company A and ask for a refund. Company A employees call a manager and then regional manager, both who say that because the blister package is open they can't refund because they can't resell. They say I can't return the product through the avenues the CPA provides (couldn't properly inspect product without breaking package, product not fit for purpose) and prefer to lay blame with us rather than take the product, which otherwise is undamaged and probably works, and give me a refund. Credit notes don't work because Company A has stores far away from my home residence.

What do?

One of the more confusing aspects of the Consumer Protection Act is the inclusion of multiple provisions covering a consumer's right to return goods. The provisions that are most relevant to your situation are covered under Section 20, which is essentially a "general" right to return goods.

Per Section 20(2), there are several circumstances whereby consumers are entitled to return goods:

(2) Subject to subsections (3) to (6), the consumer may return goods to the supplier, and receive a full refund of any consideration paid for those goods, if the supplier has delivered—
(a) goods to the consumer in terms of an agreement arising out of direct marketing, and the consumer has rescinded that agreement during the cooling off period, in accordance with section 16;
(b) goods that the consumer did not have an opportunity to examine before delivery, and the consumer has rejected delivery of those goods for any of the reasons contemplated in section 19(5);
(c) a mixture of goods, and the consumer has refused delivery of any of those goods, as contemplated in section 19(8); or
(d) goods intended to satisfy a particular purpose communicated to the supplier as contemplated in section 55(3), and within 10 business days after delivery to the consumer, the goods have been found to be unsuitable for that particular purpose."

The last of those circumstances is probably most relevant here, which immediately raises two important questions:

1. Did you communicate your intended purpose for the headphones to Company A? (i.e. PC use)

2. Did you discover the PC incompatibility within 10 days of purchasing the headphones?

If the answer to both questions is yes, then the right to return set out in Section 20 would apply. In which case, per Section 20(5):

"(5) Upon return of any goods in terms of this section, the supplier must refund to the consumer the price paid for the goods, less any amount that may be charged in terms of subsection (6)."

So Company A, by law, CANNOT simply turn you away. They HAVE to refund you EVEN IF you opened the original packaging.

What amount may they charge you in terms of "subsection 6"? That depends on whether you opened the original packaging or not, whether the headphones can be repacked in their original packaging or not, and whether any consumption or depletion occurred (which, in your case, presumably does not apply).

Since you opened the original packaging and the headphones cannot be repackaged in the original packaging, Section 20(6c) will apply:

"(c) in any other case, the supplier may charge the consumer a reasonable amount—
(i) as contemplated in paragraph (b); and
(ii) for necessary restoration costs to render the goods fit for re-stocking, unless, having regard to the nature of the goods, and the manner in which they were packaged, it was necessary for the consumer to destroy the packaging in order to determine whether the goods—
(aa) conformed to the description or sample provided, in the case of goods that had not been examined by the consumer before delivery, as contemplated in subsection (2)(b); or
(bb) were fit for the intended purpose, in a case contemplated in subsection (2)(d)."

From what you described, you had to destroy the original packaging to determine whether the headphones were suitable for your intended purpose. Therefore, Section 20(6ciib) would apply and Company A would NOT be entitled to charge you for returning the goods.

Bottom line: if everything you have described is true and accurate, and if the circumstances that Section 20 of the Consumer Protection Act hinges on apply, then Company A has a legal duty to refund you for the headphones and may not charge you.
 
I'm 25 and don't have kids. "Put it down to school fees", ha ha. Very funny.

Consider this: Turtle Beach's PX5 never said it was PC-compatible on the packaging (its in the manual, you have to open the box to figure that out), but the optical audio port on the transmitter allowed it to work properly for sound and a Bluetooth dongle would make it work for transmitting microphone audio. Razer's Carcharias only advertises functionality with the PC and Xbox 360, yet it was also PS3-compatible (needs an adapter, but it does work). Not every package is clear about a product's compatibility and I honestly didn't expect the product I bought to not be PC compatible.

Blaming me for choosing the wrong thing is all well and good, but I was under the impression that it was PC-compatible judging by the language on the back of the box saying that it was "USB-powered". I expected that they'd only offer a credit or a refund with a reasonabe handling fee, but outright refusal is a first for me.

If I remember correctly... They can refuse the item due to damaged packaging.
The CPA unfortunately does not cover buyer's ignorance nor buyer's remorse. It is not their duty to educate you on each product they sell, it is yours.
In instances like that you often find stores are happy to take back a resellable product, if they know you will take an equally (or more expensive) priced item. However the CPA does not make them do it.
You went to their stall/store and willingly selected an item. They did not call you to offer the items to you (direct marketing).

But even the direct marketing goods would have to be in the original packaging, unused in order for you to return them, else they can refuse the return of said goods.

The store would have to sell those opened items as shop soiled goods if they take them back, and would possibly have to sell them at 50% or less of their cost price.
 
If I remember correctly... They can refuse the item due to damaged packaging.

Actually, they can't. See my previous post.

The CPA unfortunately does not cover buyer's ignorance nor buyer's remorse. It is not their duty to educate you on each product they sell, it is yours.

Actually, suppliers DO have a legal responsibility to educate their customers and ensure that what they sell is fit for a consumer's intended purpose. Amongst other provisions, Part D of the CPA extensively covers these disclosure and informational responsibilities. Section 40 of the CPA also explicitly prohibits exploitation of consumer ignorance.

But even the direct marketing goods would have to be in the original packaging, unused in order for you to return them, else they can refuse the return of said goods.

Nope. Section 16, which covers a consumer's right to a cooling off period, makes no reference to packaging whatsoever.
 
Actually, they can't. See my previous post.



Actually, suppliers DO have a legal responsibility to educate their customers and ensure that what they sell is fit for a consumer's intended purpose. Amongst other provisions, Part D of the CPA extensively covers these disclosure and informational responsibilities. Section 40 of the CPA also explicitly prohibits exploitation of consumer ignorance.



Nope. Section 16, which covers a consumer's right to a cooling off period, makes no reference to packaging whatsoever.
so you would buy someone's returned cum stained sheets that were returned just before the cooling off period?
(direct marketing companies selling bedding)


So pnp and checkers have a legal obligation to educate me in the different uses of handy andy and jik?
Is it their resposibility to ask me what I intend to use it for?
they are fully functioning products each with a different intended use.
If the person posting about the earphones, a sales assistant could have educated him/his brother.
Consumer ignorance is not the seller's problem.

No store selling MS windows or Office will take back software after you installed it, even if you decide that it does not meet with your requirements. It is your responsibility to take ownership of what you need, the seller is there purely to meet the buyer's request for demand, thus being a supplier.
 
And further regarding the section 40 mentioned. The packaging (in this instance) clearly stated that it is intended for consol use, it did not mention PC, mobile phones etc. Thus the manufacturer, and ultimately the retailer did inform the consumer.
 
Even Wendy Knowler says I don't have a winnable case against Company A.

I guess I'm just not buying blister-packaged products ever again. Either I'll find a use for these stupid things or I'm going to re-sell them.
 
so you would buy someone's returned cum stained sheets that were returned just before the cooling off period?(direct marketing companies selling bedding)

Deliberately ruining a product is not the same thing as opening packaging to check whether the goods are fit for their intended use.

So pnp and checkers have a legal obligation to educate me in the different uses of handy andy and jik?

Yes, they do. They typically satisfy that obligation by ensuring that the products that they stock are properly labelled and by training their staff to handle consumer product queries.

Is it their resposibility to ask me what I intend to use it for?

No, it is the consumer's responsibility to communicate intended use. Hence, why I explicitly drew attention to this in my previous post.

No store selling MS windows or Office will take back software after you installed it, even if you decide that it does not meet with your requirements.

Software purchases are subject to the Consumer Protection Act like anything else. In fact, the CPA explicitly references software in its definition of "goods". That said, a lot depends on how software is purchased. Electronic transactions governed by the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act are exempt from many of the CPA's provisions since the ECTA has its own consumer protection.
 
Even Wendy Knowler says I don't have a winnable case against Company A.

If everything that you described in your original post is true and accurate, and if the critical contingencies that I explained in my response apply, then you absolutely have a valid case. However, I would be surprised if the value of the headphones will justify the time and effort of pursuing it further.
 
I'm 25 and don't have kids. "Put it down to school fees", ha ha. Very funny.

Apologies - I did not intend to be rude or imply anything about your age. I am over twice your age and I still "pay school fees" ie: learn the costly ways of the world by making mistakes every so often - just an expression, no offence meant.
 
Apologies - I did not intend to be rude or imply anything about your age. I am over twice your age and I still "pay school fees" ie: learn the costly ways of the world by making mistakes every so often - just an expression, no offence meant.

Oh, that's what you meant. No hard feelings then. I'm not familiar with using that phrase in that way. :)

However, I would be surprised if the value of the headphones will justify the time and effort of pursuing it further.

The headset only cost R400, so your assessment is correct. I'm going to find some use for them or sell them and instead go for a Sennheiser HD502 and desktop or neck microphone instead. More expensive, but better quality all-round.
 
Last edited:
So pnp and checkers have a legal obligation to educate me in the different uses of handy andy and jik?
Is it their resposibility to ask me what I intend to use it for?
they are fully functioning products each with a different intended use.
If the person posting about the earphones, a sales assistant could have educated him/his brother.
Consumer ignorance is not the seller's problem.

No store selling MS windows or Office will take back software after you installed it, even if you decide that it does not meet with your requirements. It is your responsibility to take ownership of what you need, the seller is there purely to meet the buyer's request for demand, thus being a supplier.
Which just goes to show what an iniquitous piece of legislation the CPA is. I can't wait for the Revolution, where this and ten thousand other outrageous and misconceived laws are consigned to the scrap heap of history, along with their promoters and legislators.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X