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

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

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.

Citation
[2015] ZACGSO 9
Parties
Applicant: Consumer (Complainant); Respondent: Supplier (Store)
Court
Consumer Goods and Services Ombud
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 July 2015
Case Number
201505-0137
Procedural Posture
Consumer Complaint / Assessment
Outcome
Complaint dismissed. No recommendation in favour of the consumer.
Judges
Bonita Hughes
Legal Topics
Consumer Protection Act, Right of Return, Defective Goods, Cooling Off Period
Commercial and Corporate Consumer Protection Act Right of Return Defective Goods Cooling Off Period

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Consumer (Complainant)

Applicant

Supplier (Store)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Consumer Complaint / Assessment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the consumer is entitled to a refund for shoes that do not fit identically to another pair purchased at the same time.
  2. 2 Whether the Consumer Protection Act grants the right to return goods in these circumstances.
  3. 3 Whether the supplier's offer of a credit note is fair and reasonable.

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.

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.