Lazarus and Another v RDB Project Management CC t/a Solid and Another (NCT/36112/2016/75(1)(b)) [2016] ZANCT 15 (9 June 2016)

Lazarus and Another v RDB Project Management CC t/a Solid and Another (NCT/36112/2016/75(1)(b)) [2016] ZANCT 15 (9 June 2016)

The Tribunal found that the kitchen counter supplied by the 1st Respondent was defective, as it cracked after normal use by the Applicant. Applying the reasonable consumer standard under the CPA, the Tribunal held that an ordinary consumer would expect a stone kitchen counter to withstand the use of a common kitchen appliance such as an electrical hot tray. The Tribunal rejected the Respondent's argument that the counter was only heat resistant, noting the lack of evidence that the Applicants were informed of any limitations. The Tribunal further found that the defect manifested within five months of installation, entitling the Applicant to a remedy under section 56 of the CPA. On the...

Citation
[2016] ZANCT 15
Parties
Applicant: David Lazarus; Applicant: Hazel Sarkin; Respondent: RDB Project Management CC t/a Solid; Respondent: Vicostone
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 June 2016
Case Number
NCT/36112/2016/75(1)(b)
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Leave and Merits Determination
Outcome
Application for leave granted; claim upheld; refund ordered.
Judges
J Simpson, D Terblanche, H Devraj
Legal Topics
Consumer Protection Act, Defective Goods, Implied Warranty of Quality, Prescription, Refund Remedy
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Consumer Protection Act Defective Goods Implied Warranty of Quality Prescription Refund Remedy

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Lazarus

Applicant

Hazel Sarkin

Applicant

RDB Project Management CC t/a Solid

Respondent

Vicostone

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Leave and Merits Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the kitchen counter supplied by the 1st Respondent was defective within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act.
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant's claim had prescribed under section 116 of the Consumer Protection Act.
  3. 3 What is the appropriate remedy for the Applicant under section 56 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the kitchen counter supplied by the 1st Respondent was defective, as it cracked after normal use by the Applicant. Applying the reasonable consumer standard under the CPA, the Tribunal held that an ordinary consumer would expect a stone kitchen counter to withstand the use of a common kitchen appliance such as an electrical hot tray. The Tribunal rejected the Respondent's argument that the counter was only heat resistant, noting the lack of evidence that the Applicants were informed of any limitations. The Tribunal further found that the defect manifested within five months of installation, entitling the Applicant to a remedy under section 56 of the CPA. On the...

Court Disposition

Application for leave granted; claim upheld; refund ordered.

Orders

  • The Applicant's application for leave to refer the matter directly to the Tribunal is granted.
  • The 1st Respondent is to pay the amount of R18 424.00 to the Applicant within 30 business days of the date of this order.