Unsolicited goods (201604-0006803) [2016] ZACGSO 10 (13 May 2016)

Unsolicited goods (201604-0006803) [2016] ZACGSO 10 (13 May 2016)

The Ombud found that section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act does not explicitly cover the situation where goods are delivered in error after cancellation but not intended for another person. The statutory definition of unsolicited goods requires notification of misdelivery and a failure to recover within the prescribed period. In this case, the complainant did not notify the supplier of the misdelivery until 34 days after delivery, and the supplier had already reversed the transaction and sought recovery. The legislative intent of section 21 is to prevent suppliers from forcing consumers to pay for goods they did not order, not to penalize suppliers for honest mistakes. Therefore, the...

Citation
[2016] ZACGSO 10
Parties
Applicant: Ms B.; Respondent: Supplier
Court
Consumer Goods and Services Ombud
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 May 2016
Case Number
201604-0006803
Procedural Posture
Consumer Complaint / Recommendation
Outcome
The television set was not unsolicited goods under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act. Ownership did not pass to the complainant, who is liable for payment of the disputed sum.
Judges
N Melville
Legal Topics
Consumer Protection Act, Unsolicited Goods, Statutory Interpretation, Ownership of Goods
Commercial and Corporate Consumer Protection Act Unsolicited Goods Statutory Interpretation Ownership of Goods

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

Parties

Ms B.

Applicant

Supplier

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Consumer Complaint / Recommendation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the LG television set delivered after cancellation constituted unsolicited goods under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act.
  2. 2 Whether ownership of the television set passed to the complainant as a result of the delivery.
  3. 3 Whether the complainant was entitled to dispose of the television set without payment.

Ratio Decidendi

The Ombud found that section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act does not explicitly cover the situation where goods are delivered in error after cancellation but not intended for another person. The statutory definition of unsolicited goods requires notification of misdelivery and a failure to recover within the prescribed period. In this case, the complainant did not notify the supplier of the misdelivery until 34 days after delivery, and the supplier had already reversed the transaction and sought recovery. The legislative intent of section 21 is to prevent suppliers from forcing consumers to pay for goods they did not order, not to penalize suppliers for honest mistakes. Therefore, the...

Court Disposition

The television set was not unsolicited goods under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act. Ownership did not pass to the complainant, who is liable for payment of the disputed sum.

Orders

  • The complainant must pay the supplier the price of the LG television set as at the time of delivery.
  • The supplier should seek no further compensation if the consumer pays the price at the time of the goods.