Moeketsi v VW Lindsay Saker Bloemfontein, A Division of Imperial Group Limited (NCT/113265/2018/75(1)(b)) [2019] ZANCT 51 (19 April 2019)

Moeketsi v VW Lindsay Saker Bloemfontein, A Division of Imperial Group Limited (NCT/113265/2018/75(1)(b)) [2019] ZANCT 51 (19 April 2019)

The Tribunal found that while there was an error in recording the mileage on the offer to purchase, the Applicant failed to provide evidence that the vehicle was defective or that the misrepresentation was material. The Applicant accepted delivery of the vehicle despite noticing the discrepancy and did not establish any defects within the first six months of ownership. The Respondent provided evidence that the vehicle was serviced prior to delivery, and the Applicant did not refute this. The Tribunal concluded that there was no contravention of sections 41, 55, or 56 of the Consumer Protection Act and that the relief sought by the Applicant was not appropriate under the circumstances.

Citation
[2019] ZANCT 51
Parties
Applicant: Teboho Richard Moeketsi; Respondent: VW Lindsay Saker Bloemfontein, A Division of Imperial Group Limited
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 April 2019
Case Number
NCT/113265/2018/75(1)(b)
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Merits Hearing After Leave to Refer Granted
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
P A Beck, F Manamela, T A Bailey
Legal Topics
Consumer Protection Act, False or Misleading Representations, Implied Warranty of Quality, Service Intervals, Defective Goods
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Consumer Protection Act False or Misleading Representations Implied Warranty of Quality Service Intervals Defective Goods

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

Parties

Teboho Richard Moeketsi

Applicant

VW Lindsay Saker Bloemfontein, A Division of Imperial Group Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Merits Hearing After Leave to Refer Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the Respondent contravene the Consumer Protection Act by misrepresenting the mileage and service history of the vehicle to the Applicant?
  2. 2 Was the vehicle supplied to the Applicant defective or not of good quality as required by the CPA?
  3. 3 Is the Applicant entitled to the relief sought under sections 41, 55, or 56 of the CPA?

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that while there was an error in recording the mileage on the offer to purchase, the Applicant failed to provide evidence that the vehicle was defective or that the misrepresentation was material. The Applicant accepted delivery of the vehicle despite noticing the discrepancy and did not establish any defects within the first six months of ownership. The Respondent provided evidence that the vehicle was serviced prior to delivery, and the Applicant did not refute this. The Tribunal concluded that there was no contravention of sections 41, 55, or 56 of the Consumer Protection Act and that the relief sought by the Applicant was not appropriate under the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The Application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.