Misleading advertising (201512-0005306) [2016] ZACGSO 6 (19 April 2016)

Misleading advertising (201512-0005306) [2016] ZACGSO 6 (19 April 2016)

The supplier's advertising did not clearly restrict the 5% discount offer to clients unable to pay in advance, nor did it adequately disclose any terms limiting eligibility. The confusion caused by the supplier's agent further disadvantaged the complainant, who acted in reliance on the advertised offer. The supplier's willingness to resolve the matter by manually applying the discount for 2017 does not address the complainant's entitlement for 2016. The Ombud recommends that the complainant be permitted to pay by debit order monthly and be credited the discount for the 2016 fee for the full period, regardless of whether she paid in advance. For 2017, the complainant should again be...

Citation
[2016] ZACGSO 6
Parties
Applicant: Complainant; Respondent: Supplier
Court
Consumer Goods and Services Ombud
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 April 2016
Case Number
201512-0005306
Procedural Posture
Consumer Complaint / Recommendation
Outcome
Recommended that the complainant be credited the 5% discount for the 2016 fees and be eligible for the discount for 2017 if the offer remains available.
Judges
N Melville
Legal Topics
Misleading Advertising, Consumer Protection, Contractual Terms, Discount Entitlement
Commercial and Corporate Misleading Advertising Consumer Protection Contractual Terms Discount Entitlement

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 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Complainant

Applicant

Supplier

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Consumer Complaint / Recommendation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the supplier's advertising regarding a 5% discount for payment by debit order was misleading or unclear.
  2. 2 Whether the complainant is entitled to the 5% discount on the 2016 fees despite confusion caused by the supplier's agent.
  3. 3 Whether the supplier's terms and conditions regarding the discount were adequately disclosed to the complainant.

Ratio Decidendi

The supplier's advertising did not clearly restrict the 5% discount offer to clients unable to pay in advance, nor did it adequately disclose any terms limiting eligibility. The confusion caused by the supplier's agent further disadvantaged the complainant, who acted in reliance on the advertised offer. The supplier's willingness to resolve the matter by manually applying the discount for 2017 does not address the complainant's entitlement for 2016. The Ombud recommends that the complainant be permitted to pay by debit order monthly and be credited the discount for the 2016 fee for the full period, regardless of whether she paid in advance. For 2017, the complainant should again be...

Court Disposition

Recommended that the complainant be credited the 5% discount for the 2016 fees and be eligible for the discount for 2017 if the offer remains available.

Orders

  • The complainant must be permitted to pay by debit order monthly and be credited the 5% discount for the 2016 fee for the full period at 27 September 2016.
  • The complainant should be eligible to claim the 5% discount for the 2017 fee by paying via debit order monthly if the offer is still available.