Recommendation: Error in Price: Third Party (201703-0012601) [2017] ZACGSO 7 (14 March 2017)

Recommendation: Error in Price: Third Party (201703-0012601) [2017] ZACGSO 7 (14 March 2017)

The supplier is not legally obliged to supply the gazebos at the erroneously advertised price. The advertisement constituted an invitation to treat, not a binding offer. The Consumer Protection Act provides relief for suppliers in cases of obvious and inadvertent pricing errors, provided the error is corrected and consumers are informed. The price discrepancy was so significant that a reasonable person would not have been misled. Multiple orders placed by the complainant further support the conclusion that the error was apparent. There is no basis for holding the supplier vicariously liable for the magazine's error, and no transaction occurred between the complainant and the magazine....

Citation
[2017] ZACGSO 7
Parties
Applicant: Complainant; Respondent: Supplier; Third Party: Outdoor Magazine
Court
Consumer Goods and Services Ombud
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 March 2017
Case Number
201703-0012601
Procedural Posture
Consumer Complaint / Recommendation
Outcome
Complaint dismissed. No recommendation made for the supplier to supply the gazebos at the advertised price.
Judges
N Melville
Legal Topics
Consumer Protection Act, Advertised Price Error, Invitation to Treat, Misleading Advertising
Commercial and Corporate Consumer Protection Act Advertised Price Error Invitation to Treat Misleading Advertising

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Complainant

Applicant

Supplier

Respondent

Outdoor Magazine

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Consumer Complaint / Recommendation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the supplier legally obliged to supply the gazebos at the erroneously advertised price under the Consumer Protection Act?
  2. 2 Does the error in the magazine's price advertisement bind the supplier to the advertised price?
  3. 3 Was the complainant misled by the incorrect price to his detriment?

Ratio Decidendi

The supplier is not legally obliged to supply the gazebos at the erroneously advertised price. The advertisement constituted an invitation to treat, not a binding offer. The Consumer Protection Act provides relief for suppliers in cases of obvious and inadvertent pricing errors, provided the error is corrected and consumers are informed. The price discrepancy was so significant that a reasonable person would not have been misled. Multiple orders placed by the complainant further support the conclusion that the error was apparent. There is no basis for holding the supplier vicariously liable for the magazine's error, and no transaction occurred between the complainant and the magazine....

Court Disposition

Complaint dismissed. No recommendation made for the supplier to supply the gazebos at the advertised price.

Orders

  • The supplier is not required to supply the gazebos at R399 each.
  • No further action is recommended against the supplier or the magazine.