Maree v Nissan SA (Pty) Ltd (NCT/95354/2017/75(1)(b)) [2019] ZANCT 67 (15 May 2019)

Maree v Nissan SA (Pty) Ltd (NCT/95354/2017/75(1)(b)) [2019] ZANCT 67 (15 May 2019)

The Tribunal found that while the vehicle was not free of defects, specifically rust on the hinges, bin, and tailgate, these defects did not render the vehicle unsafe or unfit for its intended purpose. The defects were cosmetic and did not justify the return of the vehicle or a refund of the purchase price. The Tribunal held that the appropriate remedy was for the Respondent to repair the defects to manufacturer specifications, subject the repairs to third-party inspection, and reinstate the warranty. The Tribunal considered the decisions of MIOSA and the National Consumer Commission, which had also recommended repair rather than refund. The Tribunal concluded that this approach was fair...

Citation
[2019] ZANCT 67
Parties
Applicant: Roberto Maree; Respondent: Nissan SA (Pty) Ltd
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 May 2019
Case Number
NCT/95354/2017/75(1)(b)
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Determination After Leave to Refer Granted
Outcome
Application for refund of purchase price dismissed; Respondent ordered to repair defects and reinstate warranty.
Judges
D Terblanche, B Dumisa, K Moodaliyar
Legal Topics
Consumer Protection Act, Implied Warranty of Quality, Defective Goods, Remedies for Defects
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Consumer Protection Act Implied Warranty of Quality Defective Goods Remedies for Defects

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roberto Maree

Applicant

Nissan SA (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Final Determination After Leave to Refer Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the vehicle defective as envisaged in terms of the Consumer Protection Act?
  2. 2 If the vehicle is defective, what relief is the Applicant entitled to?

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that while the vehicle was not free of defects, specifically rust on the hinges, bin, and tailgate, these defects did not render the vehicle unsafe or unfit for its intended purpose. The defects were cosmetic and did not justify the return of the vehicle or a refund of the purchase price. The Tribunal held that the appropriate remedy was for the Respondent to repair the defects to manufacturer specifications, subject the repairs to third-party inspection, and reinstate the warranty. The Tribunal considered the decisions of MIOSA and the National Consumer Commission, which had also recommended repair rather than refund. The Tribunal concluded that this approach was fair...

Court Disposition

Application for refund of purchase price dismissed; Respondent ordered to repair defects and reinstate warranty.

Orders

  • The Applicant must make the vehicle available to the Respondent for inspection and receive a report on proposed repairs by 31 May 2019.
  • The Respondent must repair the defects to manufacturer specifications by 30 June 2019.