Damage altered (201605-0007205) [2016] ZACGSO 11 (16 September 2016)

Damage altered (201605-0007205) [2016] ZACGSO 11 (16 September 2016)

The Ombud found that, based on the evidence including the supplier’s report, photographs, and an independent expert’s assessment, the laptop did have liquid damage. However, it was not possible to determine how or when the damage occurred, nor whether it was caused contrary to instructions. Since liquid damage is not covered by the warranty and is not a manufacturer’s defect, the supplier is not obliged to repair the laptop under warranty. The complainant failed to discharge the burden of proof that the defect was covered by the warranty. The office concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of making a recommendation in the complainant’s favour.

Citation
[2016] ZACGSO 11
Parties
Applicant: Complainant; Respondent: Supplier
Court
Consumer Goods and Services Ombud
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 September 2016
Case Number
201605-0007205
Procedural Posture
Consumer Complaint / Final Determination
Outcome
Complaint dismissed. The supplier is not obliged to repair the laptop under warranty.
Legal Topics
Consumer Protection Act, Warranty Liability, Burden of Proof, Manufacturer Defect
Commercial and Corporate Consumer Protection Act Warranty Liability Burden of Proof Manufacturer 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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Complainant

Applicant

Supplier

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Consumer Complaint / Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the laptop's damage is covered by the warranty.
  2. 2 Whether the supplier is obliged to repair the laptop under the Consumer Protection Act.
  3. 3 Whether the complainant caused the liquid damage or if it is a manufacturer’s defect.

Ratio Decidendi

The Ombud found that, based on the evidence including the supplier’s report, photographs, and an independent expert’s assessment, the laptop did have liquid damage. However, it was not possible to determine how or when the damage occurred, nor whether it was caused contrary to instructions. Since liquid damage is not covered by the warranty and is not a manufacturer’s defect, the supplier is not obliged to repair the laptop under warranty. The complainant failed to discharge the burden of proof that the defect was covered by the warranty. The office concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of making a recommendation in the complainant’s favour.

Court Disposition

Complaint dismissed. The supplier is not obliged to repair the laptop under warranty.

Orders

  • The supplier is not required to repair the laptop under warranty.
  • The file is closed and no further action will be taken by this office.