Bartes v Hyundai Automotive South Africa (Pty) Ltd t/a Hyundai N1 City (NCT/324648/2024/75(1)(b)) [2024] ZANCT 44 (11 October 2024)

Bartes v Hyundai Automotive South Africa (Pty) Ltd t/a Hyundai N1 City (NCT/324648/2024/75(1)(b)) [2024] ZANCT 44 (11 October 2024)

The Tribunal found that the respondent misrepresented the vehicle model to the applicant and failed to correct his misapprehension regarding a material aspect of the vehicle. This conduct contravened sections 29(a), 29(b)(v), 41(1)(a), and 41(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act. Although the applicant was not charged for a Mzansi edition BMW, the respondent’s actions amounted to prohibited conduct under the CPA. The Tribunal determined that the appropriate relief was to cancel the sale agreement and order the respondent to refund the applicant the full purchase price, restoring the applicant to his original position before the transaction. The Tribunal declined to order the respondent to...

Citation
[2024] ZANCT 44
Parties
Applicant: Sylvester Henry Bartes; Respondent: Hyundai Automotive South Africa (Pty) Ltd t/a Hyundai N1 City
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Case Number
NCT/324648/2024/75(1)(b)
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application granted. Sale agreement cancelled. Respondent ordered to collect vehicle and refund applicant.
Judges
A Potwana, P Manzi-Ntshingila, C Sassman
Legal Topics
Consumer Protection Act, Misrepresentation, Contract Cancellation, Prohibited Conduct
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Consumer Protection Act Misrepresentation Contract Cancellation Prohibited Conduct

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 6 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sylvester Henry Bartes

Applicant

Hyundai Automotive South Africa (Pty) Ltd t/a Hyundai N1 City

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the respondent contravene the applicant's rights under the Consumer Protection Act by misrepresenting the vehicle model sold?
  2. 2 Is the applicant entitled to relief, including cancellation of the sale agreement and refund, as a result of the respondent's conduct?

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the respondent misrepresented the vehicle model to the applicant and failed to correct his misapprehension regarding a material aspect of the vehicle. This conduct contravened sections 29(a), 29(b)(v), 41(1)(a), and 41(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act. Although the applicant was not charged for a Mzansi edition BMW, the respondent’s actions amounted to prohibited conduct under the CPA. The Tribunal determined that the appropriate relief was to cancel the sale agreement and order the respondent to refund the applicant the full purchase price, restoring the applicant to his original position before the transaction. The Tribunal declined to order the respondent to...

Court Disposition

Application granted. Sale agreement cancelled. Respondent ordered to collect vehicle and refund applicant.

Orders

  • The respondent has contravened sections 29(a), 29(b)(v), 41(1)(a), and 41(1)(c) of the CPA.
  • The respondent’s contravention is declared prohibited conduct.