- Flynote
-
Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 – consumer approaching the high
court to enforce their rights under the Act against the supplier of the motor vehicle
before exhausting internal remedies set out in s 69 – whether s 69 precludes consumer
from approaching the court to seek remedy –Refund remedy: consumer not entitled to
a refund of the purchase price unless they satisfy the court that all requirements
stipulated in s 56(3) have been met – determination of amount of the purchase price
to be refunded regulated by s 20. Court a quo materially misdirected itself in awarding
refund remedy – appeal succeeds
Loading PDF...
This document is 249.0 KB. Do you want to load it?
Cited documents 4
Judgment 2
- S v Steward (CA&R 83/15) [2016] ZANCHC 1 (9 September 2016)
- Trencon Construction (Pty) Ltd v Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Limited and Another [2015] ZACC 22 (26 June 2015)
Legislation 2
Documents citing this one 6
Judgment 6
- Mathevula v Willow Crest Motors CC (NCT/157953/2020/75(1)(b)) [2023] ZANCT 4 (4 February 2023)
- National Consumer Commission v Turnstone Trading 52 (Pty) Ltd t/a Country Wide Truck Sales (NCT/184423/2021/73(2)(b)) [2022] ZANCT 31 (25 July 2022)
- Ndlovu v Toyota Randburg (NCT/139033/2019/75(10) [2022] ZANCT 60 (31 March 2022)
- Platinum Wheels (Pty) Ltd v National Consumer Commission and Another (A261/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 1068 (2 November 2022)
- Platinum Wheels (Pty) Ltd v National Consumer Commission and Another (A261/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 997 (2 November 2022)
- Van Stryp v Mahindra East Rand CC and Another (NCT/215614/2022/75(1)(b)) [2023] ZANCT 12 (31 March 2023)