Peter v NTT Motor East London (Pty) Ltd t/a Audi East London (NCT/243451/2022/75(1)(b)) [2024] ZANCT 23 (19 July 2024)

Peter v NTT Motor East London (Pty) Ltd t/a Audi East London (NCT/243451/2022/75(1)(b)) [2024] ZANCT 23 (19 July 2024)

The Tribunal found that the brake servo failure in the applicant's vehicle was a material defect as defined in section 53(1)(a) of the CPA. The defect rendered the vehicle unsafe and unusable within two months of delivery, failing to meet the standards of suitability, quality, and durability required by section 55(2). The applicant notified the respondent of the defect and her choice of remedy within six months, as required by section 56(2). The respondent was obliged to act as directed by the applicant but instead insisted on repairs under the OEM warranty, which does not override statutory rights. The Tribunal rejected the respondent's argument that the defect was minor and easily...

Citation
[2024] ZANCT 23
Parties
Applicant: Grissel Thandeka Peter; Respondent: NTT Motors East London (Pty) Ltd t/a Audi East London
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 July 2024
Case Number
NCT/243451/2022/75(1)(b)
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Merits Determination After Leave to Refer Granted
Outcome
Application upheld. The respondent is ordered to refund the applicant the full purchase price and collect the vehicle at its risk and expense.
Judges
Zodwa Ntuli, Nomfundo Maseti, Selwyn Hockey
Legal Topics
Consumer Protection Act, Implied Warranty, Defective Goods, Prohibited Conduct, Refund Remedy
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Consumer Protection Act Implied Warranty Defective Goods Prohibited Conduct 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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grissel Thandeka Peter

Applicant

NTT Motors East London (Pty) Ltd t/a Audi East London

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Merits Determination After Leave to Refer Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the respondent contravene sections 55(2)(a)-(c) and 56(2)(a)-(b) of the Consumer Protection Act by selling a vehicle with a material defect?
  2. 2 Does the brake servo failure constitute a defect as defined in section 53(1)(a) of the CPA?
  3. 3 Is the applicant entitled to a refund of the purchase price under section 56(2) of the CPA?

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the brake servo failure in the applicant's vehicle was a material defect as defined in section 53(1)(a) of the CPA. The defect rendered the vehicle unsafe and unusable within two months of delivery, failing to meet the standards of suitability, quality, and durability required by section 55(2). The applicant notified the respondent of the defect and her choice of remedy within six months, as required by section 56(2). The respondent was obliged to act as directed by the applicant but instead insisted on repairs under the OEM warranty, which does not override statutory rights. The Tribunal rejected the respondent's argument that the defect was minor and easily...

Court Disposition

Application upheld. The respondent is ordered to refund the applicant the full purchase price and collect the vehicle at its risk and expense.

Orders

  • The respondent contravened sections 55(2)(a)-(c) and 56(2)(a)-(b) of the CPA.
  • These contraventions are declared prohibited conduct.