Assessment: Defective Goods-Damage (201602-0011901) [2017] ZACGSO 1 (20 April 2017)
- Citation
- [2017] ZACGSO 1
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Consumer Goods and Services Ombud
- Posture
- Consumer Complaint / Assessment
- Case number
- 201602-0011901
More details
- Court
- Consumer Goods and Services Ombud
- Posture
- Consumer Complaint / Assessment
- Case number
- 201602-0011901
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Ombud found that, while the motherboard exhibited physical damage, there was insufficient evidence to determine conclusively whether the damage was caused by the complainant or was a manufacturer’s defect. The technical advisor confirmed that the damage was not a factory fault but resulted from customer negligence. As physical damage is excluded from warranty coverage, and the supplier had already repaired the board as a matter of goodwill, there was no legal basis to compel the supplier to refund or replace the product. The Ombud concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of making a recommendation in the complainant’s favour.
Court disposition
Complaint dismissed; no recommendation made in favour of the complainant.
Orders
- The supplier is not required to refund or replace the motherboard.
- The supplier’s goodwill repair is acknowledged as sufficient.
- The complainant is advised to collect the repaired goods at his convenience.
02
Material facts
Parties
Complainant
ApplicantSupplier
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Consumer Complaint / Assessment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the supplier is liable to refund or replace the motherboard due to alleged defects.
- 02
Whether the physical damage to the motherboard is covered under the warranty.
- 03
Whether the damage was caused by customer abuse or was a manufacturer’s defect.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The complainant asserts that the motherboard did not work upon installation and failed repeatedly after repairs. He denies causing any damage and requests a full refund, claiming the product was defective from the outset.
- Respondent
- The supplier maintains that the damage to the motherboard, specifically bent pins, resulted from customer abuse and is not covered by warranty. They have repaired the board multiple times as a gesture of goodwill but refuse further assistance or a refund.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Independent technical advisor report by Joe Berinato
Physical damage caused by customer negligence is not covered under standard product warranties.
- 02
Principles of reasonableness and fairness applied by the Ombud
A supplier is not obliged to refund or replace goods where damage is not attributable to a manufacturing defect.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Ombud found that, while the motherboard exhibited physical damage, there was insufficient evidence to determine conclusively whether the damage was caused by the complainant or was a manufacturer’s defect. The technical advisor confirmed that the damage was not a factory fault but resulted from customer negligence. As physical damage is excluded from warranty coverage, and the supplier had already repaired the board as a matter of goodwill, there was no legal basis to compel the supplier to refund or replace the product. The Ombud concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of making a recommendation in the complainant’s favour.
Obiter and limits
- The Ombud noted the complainant’s dissatisfaction but emphasized the inability to determine the cause of the damage.
- The supplier’s repeated goodwill repairs were acknowledged, but further obligations could not be imposed without clear evidence of a manufacturer’s defect.
Court disposition
Complaint dismissed; no recommendation made in favour of the complainant.
- The supplier is not required to refund or replace the motherboard.
- The supplier’s goodwill repair is acknowledged as sufficient.
- The complainant is advised to collect the repaired goods at his convenience.
Source and reliance status
Consumer Goods and Services Ombud
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Consumer Goods and Services Ombud
Judgment
Our ref: 201602-0011901
20 April 2017
ASSESSMENT:
YOUR COMPLAINT
The above matter, as well as your Customer Complaint Form has reference.
Summary of your complaint
The complainant purchased a Motherboard along with a CPU cooler and a CPU RAM in January 2016.
When the complainant installed the goods, he alleges that the board did not work.
The complainant sent the board back to the supplier and upon checking they saw that there were bent pins on the socket which they
attributed to customer abuse. The supplier however fixed the board and returned it to the complainant.
The complainant alleges that the board worked for 2 weeks and just suddenly stopped working. Again he sent it back to the supplier who again raised the issue of customer abuse. Despite this the supplier fixed the board.
When the problem occurred for a third time the complainant approached the supplier and requested a refund.
Summary of response
According to the supplier, the damage on the goods purchased by the complainant are as a result of customer abuse and that such damage is not covered by warranty.
The supplier further advised that they have on numerous occasions assisted the complainant and are no longer willing to assist him.
Assessment
We have considered all the evidence presented by both the complainant and the supplier and advise as follows:
The supplier has advised that they cannot refund the complainant since the damage was as a result of customer abuse. They have however
agreed as a matter of goodwill to repair the board one more time.
The complainant is unhappy with this response and wants a full refund.
Our office received the following pictures reflecting the damage:
NB: PLEASE
CONSULT THE PDF FOR IMAGES
Our office decided to get an independent third party who is a technical advisor to look at the facts and evidence provided for the damaged board. This was done by Joe Berinato of ItalVisuals.
In terms of his response he has noted that the damage to the pins on the board is not a factory fault but rather damage resulting from customer negligence. He went on further to say that it is well known that physical damage is not covered under warranty and it would be unfair to expect the supplier to refund or exchange the board with bent pins.
He however engaged the supplier further on this matter and requested that as a matter of goodwill the supplier repair the goods for the complainant. The supplier agreed and confirmed with this office that the goods have been repaired and are in 100% working order. The complainant was advised of this and requested to take delivery of the goods at his earliest convenience.
The complainant has advised this office of his dissatisfaction with the response of the supplier.
While we take note that the complainant denies causing any such damage we are however not able to determine how and when such damage was caused.
From the evidence, it is clear the board does have physical damage, but how it was caused we do not know.
On a balance of probabilities, we can therefore not conclude how exactly the damage was caused and if the goods were damaged due to the customer’s abuse. This type of damaged is however not covered by the warranty and is not a manufacturer’s defect. We are therefore unable to instruct the supplier to repair or replace the couches.
Based on the facts of this case, the information and evidence furnished to this office and on the principles of reasonableness and fairness, there is no reasonable prospect of this office making a recommendation in the complainant’s favour.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.