Bed replaced 3 times: Supplier's offer to replace base endorsed (2013613250) [2013] ZACGSO 5 (16 September 2013)

Bed replaced 3 times: Supplier's offer to replace base endorsed (2013613250) [2013] ZACGSO 5 (16 September 2013)

The consumer's claim for a refund of R1 150.00 paid for the second bed set is rejected because the consumer voluntarily selected a more expensive replacement and agreed to pay the price difference at the time of exchange. There is no legal basis to compel the supplier to refund this amount. Regarding the request for a new bed set, the six-month automatic warranty period under Section 56 of the Consumer Protection Act has expired, and the store warranty is no longer applicable. However, Section 55 requires goods to be durable for a reasonable period. The supplier has already replaced the bed multiple times and now offers to replace the base at no charge, which is deemed fair and reasonable...

Citation
[2013] ZACGSO 5
Parties
Applicant: Consumer; Respondent: Supplier
Court
Consumer Goods and Services Ombud
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 September 2013
Case Number
2013613250
Procedural Posture
Consumer Complaint / Adjudication
Outcome
The complaint is resolved by endorsing the supplier's offer to replace the base of the bed set at no charge. The consumer's requests for a full refund and a new bed set are rejected.
Judges
Bonita Hughes
Legal Topics
Consumer Protection Act, Automatic Warranty, Durability of Goods, Refund Policy, Material Defect
Commercial and Corporate Consumer Protection Act Automatic Warranty Durability of Goods Refund Policy Material Defect

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 5 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Consumer

Applicant

Supplier

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Consumer Complaint / Adjudication

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the consumer is entitled to a refund of R1 150.00 paid for the second bed set.
  2. 2 Whether the consumer is entitled to a replacement of the entire bed set after the expiry of the automatic warranty period.
  3. 3 Whether the supplier's offer to replace the base at no charge is fair and reasonable under the Consumer Protection Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The consumer's claim for a refund of R1 150.00 paid for the second bed set is rejected because the consumer voluntarily selected a more expensive replacement and agreed to pay the price difference at the time of exchange. There is no legal basis to compel the supplier to refund this amount. Regarding the request for a new bed set, the six-month automatic warranty period under Section 56 of the Consumer Protection Act has expired, and the store warranty is no longer applicable. However, Section 55 requires goods to be durable for a reasonable period. The supplier has already replaced the bed multiple times and now offers to replace the base at no charge, which is deemed fair and reasonable...

Court Disposition

The complaint is resolved by endorsing the supplier's offer to replace the base of the bed set at no charge. The consumer's requests for a full refund and a new bed set are rejected.

Orders

  • The supplier must replace the base of the bed set at no charge to the consumer.
  • No refund of R1 150.00 is due to the consumer.