Incorrect Subscription (201505-0125) [2015] ZACGSO 8 (21 September 2015)

Incorrect Subscription (201505-0125) [2015] ZACGSO 8 (21 September 2015)

The Ombud found that the complainant entered into a binding agreement with the supplier, which was later compromised by her acceptance of the supplier's proposal to change ownership details. The supplier admitted its error and refunded the complainant for the period prior to the complaint. However, the complainant's acceptance of the compromise and subsequent delay in effecting the change of ownership meant she was bound by the terms of the compromise and could not claim further refunds. The supplier's offer to refund one additional month was deemed fair and reasonable. The Ombud concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of making a recommendation in the complainant's favour.

Citation
[2015] ZACGSO 8
Parties
Applicant: Complainant; Respondent: Supplier
Court
Consumer Goods and Services Ombud
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 September 2015
Case Number
201505-0125
Procedural Posture
Consumer Complaint / Assessment
Outcome
Complaint dismissed; no further refund recommended.
Legal Topics
Consumer Protection, Contractual Compromise, Refund Claims
Commercial and Corporate Consumer Protection Contractual Compromise Refund Claims

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 / Assessment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the supplier was obliged to refund the complainant for five months of incorrect billing after the error was reported.
  2. 2 Whether the complainant's acceptance of the supplier's compromise offer precludes further claims for refund.
  3. 3 Whether the supplier's conduct breached the principles of reasonableness and fairness in consumer contracts.

Ratio Decidendi

The Ombud found that the complainant entered into a binding agreement with the supplier, which was later compromised by her acceptance of the supplier's proposal to change ownership details. The supplier admitted its error and refunded the complainant for the period prior to the complaint. However, the complainant's acceptance of the compromise and subsequent delay in effecting the change of ownership meant she was bound by the terms of the compromise and could not claim further refunds. The supplier's offer to refund one additional month was deemed fair and reasonable. The Ombud concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of making a recommendation in the complainant's favour.

Court Disposition

Complaint dismissed; no further refund recommended.

Orders

  • The supplier is not required to refund the complainant for the five months following the report of the error.
  • The supplier's offer to refund one month's subscription is considered fair and reasonable.