Reg 44 fairness (201606-0007707) [2016] ZACGSO 12 (29 August 2016)

Reg 44 fairness (201606-0007707) [2016] ZACGSO 12 (29 August 2016)

The Ombud found that while the supplier's terms and conditions allow for unilateral changes to the fitness goals, such changes must comply with the fairness requirements of the Consumer Protection Act. The evidence did not allow the Ombud to determine whether the changes were reasonable or whether consumers could meet the new goals. However, Regulation 44 provides a remedy for consumers in the event of unilateral changes: immediate notification and the right to dissolve the agreement. The supplier's offer to cancel the contract and restore the complainant to his original financial position aligns with both the statutory remedy and the complainant's requested outcomes. The Ombud cannot...

Citation
[2016] ZACGSO 12
Parties
Applicant: Complainant; Respondent: Supplier
Court
Consumer Goods and Services Ombud
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 August 2016
Case Number
201606-0007707
Procedural Posture
Consumer Complaint / Assessment
Outcome
The Ombud recommends that the complainant accept the supplier's offer to cancel the agreement and be restored to his original financial position. No order is made compelling the supplier to revert to the original goals.
Legal Topics
Consumer Protection Act, Unilateral Contract Amendment, Unfair Contract Terms, Regulation 44, Contract Dissolution
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Consumer Protection Act Unilateral Contract Amendment Unfair Contract Terms Regulation 44 Contract Dissolution

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Complainant

Applicant

Supplier

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Consumer Complaint / Assessment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the supplier's unilateral amendment of contract terms regarding fitness goals is permissible under the Consumer Protection Act.
  2. 2 Whether the amended terms are unfair, unreasonable, or unjust in terms of section 48 and regulation 44 of the Consumer Protection Act.
  3. 3 Whether the complainant is entitled to revert to the original contract terms or dissolve the agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The Ombud found that while the supplier's terms and conditions allow for unilateral changes to the fitness goals, such changes must comply with the fairness requirements of the Consumer Protection Act. The evidence did not allow the Ombud to determine whether the changes were reasonable or whether consumers could meet the new goals. However, Regulation 44 provides a remedy for consumers in the event of unilateral changes: immediate notification and the right to dissolve the agreement. The supplier's offer to cancel the contract and restore the complainant to his original financial position aligns with both the statutory remedy and the complainant's requested outcomes. The Ombud cannot...

Court Disposition

The Ombud recommends that the complainant accept the supplier's offer to cancel the agreement and be restored to his original financial position. No order is made compelling the supplier to revert to the original goals.

Orders

  • The complainant is advised to accept the supplier's offer to cancel the agreement and restore his financial position.
  • No order is made requiring the supplier to revert to the original fitness goals.