Watch strap broke on last day of warrantee period: Supplier not liable to replace or refund (201311136) [2014] ZACGSO 12 (22 January 2014)

Watch strap broke on last day of warrantee period: Supplier not liable to replace or refund (201311136) [2014] ZACGSO 12 (22 January 2014)

The Ombud found that there was a factual dispute between the complainant and the supplier regarding the cause of the watch strap breaking. No further evidence was presented to substantiate either version. The watch broke on the last day of the six-month return period, but its satisfactory use for six months indicated reasonable quality. As the defect was not proved on a balance of probabilities, the Ombud could not make a finding in favour of the complainant under Section 56 of the Consumer Protection Act and declined to instruct the supplier to refund or replace the watch.

Citation
[2014] ZACGSO 12
Parties
Applicant: Complainant; Respondent: Supplier
Court
Consumer Goods and Services Ombud
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 January 2014
Case Number
201311136
Procedural Posture
Consumer Complaint / Final Determination
Outcome
Complaint dismissed due to lack of evidence proving a defect on a balance of probabilities.
Judges
Bonita Hughes
Legal Topics
Consumer Protection Act, Warranty Liability, Burden of Proof
Commercial and Corporate Consumer Protection Act Warranty Liability Burden of Proof

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Complainant

Applicant

Supplier

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Consumer Complaint / Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the supplier is liable to refund or replace the watch under the Consumer Protection Act when the strap broke on the last day of the warranty period.
  2. 2 Whether the defect was proved on a balance of probabilities.

Ratio Decidendi

The Ombud found that there was a factual dispute between the complainant and the supplier regarding the cause of the watch strap breaking. No further evidence was presented to substantiate either version. The watch broke on the last day of the six-month return period, but its satisfactory use for six months indicated reasonable quality. As the defect was not proved on a balance of probabilities, the Ombud could not make a finding in favour of the complainant under Section 56 of the Consumer Protection Act and declined to instruct the supplier to refund or replace the watch.

Court Disposition

Complaint dismissed due to lack of evidence proving a defect on a balance of probabilities.

Orders

  • The supplier is not required to refund or replace the watch.
  • The complainant may pursue repairs at their own cost as offered by the supplier.