Download PDF

South Africa Ruling

Consumer Goods and Services Ombud

Return of Shoes (201505-0137) [2015] ZACGSO 9 (22 July 2015)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Ombud found that the consumer had the opportunity to inspect and fit the shoes before purchase. The discomfort or difference in fit between the black and red pairs does not constitute a defect under the Consumer Protection Act. The Act does not grant an absolute right to return goods unless they are defective or the transaction involved direct marketing. The supplier's offer of a credit note is considered fair and reasonable. There is no reasonable prospect of a recommendation in the consumer's favour, and the file is closed.

Court disposition

Complaint dismissed. No recommendation in favour of the consumer.

Orders

  • The supplier's offer of a credit note is considered fair and reasonable.
  • The file is closed.

02

Material facts

Parties

Consumer (Complainant)

Applicant

Supplier (Store)

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Consumer Complaint / Assessment

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The consumer purchased two pairs of leather shoes, one red and one black. The red pair fits perfectly, but the black pair has a ripple effect and does not fit as comfortably. The consumer expected both pairs to be identical in fit and performance, and after trying other pairs, found the black shoes consistently uncomfortable. The consumer believes the shoes do not meet the specifications or purpose for which they were purchased and seeks a refund.
Respondent
The supplier asserts that the goods are not defective and therefore cannot be returned under the Consumer Protection Act. The store's policy applies, and since the shoes are in a sellable condition, the consumer is offered a credit note or exchange, not a refund.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Consumer Protection Act, section 20(2)

    The Consumer Protection Act only provides a cooling off period for direct marketing transactions. Otherwise, goods may only be returned for a refund if they are defective within six months of purchase.

  2. 02

    Consumer Protection Act, section 18

    Consumers have the right to examine goods before delivery, and if they do so, they lose the right to return them for a refund after delivery unless the goods are defective.

  3. 03

    Consumer Protection Act

    A supplier is not obliged to take back goods simply because the consumer changes their mind, finds them uncomfortable, or they do not fit, unless the goods were in a sealed package.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Ombud found that the consumer had the opportunity to inspect and fit the shoes before purchase. The discomfort or difference in fit between the black and red pairs does not constitute a defect under the Consumer Protection Act. The Act does not grant an absolute right to return goods unless they are defective or the transaction involved direct marketing. The supplier's offer of a credit note is considered fair and reasonable. There is no reasonable prospect of a recommendation in the consumer's favour, and the file is closed.

Obiter and limits

  • Consumers should inspect goods before purchase, as stores are not obliged to refund for reasons of discomfort or change of mind.
  • The consumer may refer the complaint to the National Consumer Commission under section 71 of the Consumer Protection Act if dissatisfied with this outcome.

Court disposition

Complaint dismissed. No recommendation in favour of the consumer.

  • The supplier's offer of a credit note is considered fair and reasonable.
  • The file is closed.

Source and reliance status

Consumer Goods and Services Ombud

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Consumer Goods and Services Ombud

Ruling

[2015] ZACGSO 9

Our ref: 201505-0137

ASSESSMENT:

RETURN OF SHOES

Summary of your complaint

You purchased two pairs of leather shoes on 06 May 2015- one in red and one in black. The red pair fits perfectly but the black pair has a ripple effect over the toe area on both shoes.

You returned the shoes to the supplier who advised you that it is not a manufacturer’s defect and that in terms of the store’s

policy you would have to accept a credit note.

You refused to accept the credit note and spoke with the Customer Service Manager who also advised that it is not a manufacturer’s

defect.

It was then agreed that the shoes will be send to the factory for testing. You received feedback, after the testing, that the shoes do not have a defect.

You could not understand this as the red pair fits perfectly but the black pair not. The manager advised that a different leather is used for the black shoes and that it does not mean that the shoes are defective.

You had an expectation that both pairs would be identical and feel the same as it is the same style and make.

You have tried on three other pairs and they all feel the same.

You feel that the shoes do not perform to the specifications of the red pair and therefore do not fit the purpose for which they were purchased.

You would like a refund.

Summary of the supplier’s Response

According to the response the goods are not defective and cannot be returned in terms of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA).

Their store’s policy on returns apply and because the shoes were in a sellable condition they offer the consumer a credit note or exchange.

Kindly find attached supplier’s response.

Assessment

We have considered all the evidence presented by both you and the supplier and advise as follows:

The most widely misunderstood aspect of the CPA is the right to return goods or cancel an agreement. Many people mistakenly believe that they have the absolute right to change their minds after buying something and to return it for a refund.

The correct position is that there is only a cooling off period if direct marketing took place. The only other time you can cancel the transaction after the goods are delivered is if the goods were in some way defective within six months after you bought them. This right applies whether or not you could have detected the defect before taking delivery of the goods.

This does not mean that you should not try on or inspect the goods in the store. On the contrary, the CPA gives you the right to choose or examine goods and to select or reject any particular item from displayed stock before completing the transaction (section 18). If you have had the opportunity to examine the goods before they are delivered, you lose the right under section 20(2) to return them to the supplier and receive a full refund after they have been delivered to you.

It is essential that you inspect the goods before delivery because, unless the shop has a refund policy, it is not obliged to take back goods that:

· You change your mind about;

· Your partner does not like;

· Do not match your other clothes/ furniture;

· Do not fit (unless the goods were in a sealed package);

· Are uncomfortable to wear;

· Are uncomfortable to sit/ sleep on;

· You realise you cannot afford.

In this instance you had an opportunity to inspect and to fit the shoes before buying it. The fact that the shoes do not sit as comfortable or exactly the same as the red pair is not sufficient grounds to instruct the store to refund you.

The store has however offered you a credit note, we consider this offer to be fair and reasonable.

Based on the facts of this case, the information and evidence furnished to this office and on the principles of reasonableness and fairness, there is no reasonable prospect of this office making a recommendation in your favour.

We regret that we cannot be of assistance and confirm that our file has been closed.

You are advised that you may now take such other steps as you wish or refer the complaint to the National Consumer Commission in accordance with section 71:

71. (1) Any person may file a complaint concerning a matter contemplated in section

69 (1)(c)(ii) or (2)(b) with the Commission in the prescribed manner and form, alleging that a person has acted in a manner inconsistent with this Act.

The Commission may be contacted at:

Tel: 012 761 3000

Email: complaints@thencc.org.za

Yours faithfully

Bonita Hughes

Complaints Officer

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Consumer Protection Act, section 18

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Consumer Protection Act, section 20(2)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Consumer Protection Act, section 71

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.