Assessment: Defective Goods - Leather Lounge (201701/0011789) [2017] ZACGSO 5 (20 April 2017)

Assessment: Defective Goods - Leather Lounge (201701/0011789) [2017] ZACGSO 5 (20 April 2017)

The Ombud found that the lounge suite did not have a manufacturer’s defect based on independent expert assessment. The complainant had the opportunity to inspect the goods prior to delivery, and any dissatisfaction with the specification or colour variation was not attributable to a defect. The CPA provides that consumers lose the right to return goods for a refund after delivery if they have examined the goods beforehand. The supplier’s refusal to refund or replace the suite is justified as no defect was found and the complainant had inspected the goods. Therefore, there is no reasonable prospect of a recommendation in favour of the complainant.

Citation
[2017] ZACGSO 5
Parties
Applicant: Complainant; Respondent: Supplier
Court
Consumer Goods and Services Ombud
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 April 2017
Case Number
201701/0011789
Procedural Posture
Consumer Complaint / Assessment
Outcome
Complaint dismissed; no recommendation in favour of the complainant.
Legal Topics
Consumer Protection Act, Defective Goods, Refund Rights, Inspection of Goods
Commercial and Corporate Consumer Protection Act Defective Goods Refund Rights Inspection of Goods

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Complainant

Applicant

Supplier

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Consumer Complaint / Assessment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lounge suite purchased by the complainant was defective within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act.
  2. 2 Whether the complainant is entitled to a refund or replacement under the CPA given the circumstances of inspection and delivery.
  3. 3 Whether the supplier's refusal to refund or replace the goods is justified under the CPA.

Ratio Decidendi

The Ombud found that the lounge suite did not have a manufacturer’s defect based on independent expert assessment. The complainant had the opportunity to inspect the goods prior to delivery, and any dissatisfaction with the specification or colour variation was not attributable to a defect. The CPA provides that consumers lose the right to return goods for a refund after delivery if they have examined the goods beforehand. The supplier’s refusal to refund or replace the suite is justified as no defect was found and the complainant had inspected the goods. Therefore, there is no reasonable prospect of a recommendation in favour of the complainant.

Court Disposition

Complaint dismissed; no recommendation in favour of the complainant.

Orders

  • No refund or replacement is ordered.
  • Any further changes to the lounge suite will be at the complainant’s expense.