consumer protection act causing price increases?

[murdock]

so who is it protecting...the consumer ? they should have added a clause in the consumer act..." no prices are to be increased.

just for the record i am busy revising a quote which has to be in by the end of bussiness today...EVERY single price has increased between R10 - R150 per item and we are talking items ranging between R5 and R600...so you have to ask yourself has it made it any better for the consumer...some how i think not.

price increases effective the 1 april 2011 and i thought it was an april fools day joke...let me just bend over and hold my anckles again....soeveryone can carryo on shafting me.
when i read an email the other day informing me that out of every R10 i earn R6 goes to tax etc and i am only left with R4 well it seems it has just moved to being left with R3

[Dave A]

Just pass those price increases on, Murdock.

[Neville Bailey]

If I may play devil's advocate here...

If I was a retailer with highly breakable goods on my shelves, and I am no longer allowed to put up a sign that says "If you break it you pay for it", then how do I cover myself? I put up my prices!

Any other suggestions?

[Justloadit]

If I may play devil's advocate here...

If I was a retailer with highly breakable goods on my shelves, and I am no longer allowed to put up a sign that says "If you break it you pay for it", then how do I cover myself? I put up my prices!

Any other suggestions?

Hi Nevile,

How about a criminal case of damage to property due to negligence?

[murdock]

so who get the short end of the stick again...the consumer...poor suckers (including myself you and anyone who buys anything)...we just cant win.

[tec0]

If I may play devil's advocate here...

If I was a retailer with highly breakable goods on my shelves, and I am no longer allowed to put up a sign that says "If you break it you pay for it", then how do I cover myself? I put up my prices!

Any other suggestions?

Armour glass works wonders, secondly a good insurance and security systems will also ease things over. That said just state “Due to new laws and insurance policies we must decline the handling of goods by our Customers” let the law makers deal with the problem...?

[tec0]

so who get the short end of the stick again...the consumer...poor suckers (including myself you and anyone who buys anything)...we just cant win.

I seriously don’t like losing; remember the law is both a blessing and a burden. I would imagine that contracts will become the “compromise”

[Neville Bailey]

Armour glass works wonders, secondly a good insurance and security systems will also ease things over.

More costs that the retailers need to recover somehow...

That said just state “Due to new laws and insurance policies we must decline the handling of goods by our Customers” let the law makers deal with the problem...?

In fact, the new Consumer Protection Act specifically states that consumers are entitled to handle and touch goods that are on display!

[IanF]

In fact, the new Consumer Protection Act specifically states that consumers are entitled to handle and touch goods that are on display!

Great now I can walk in to a Computer store insist they install Pastel to test drive it. Then turn around and say it doesn't allow deleting of entries as an example so I don't want it and then walk out and refuse to pay. Or am I misreading this.

[Neville Bailey]

Great now I can walk in to a Computer store insist they install Pastel to test drive it. Then turn around and say it doesn't allow deleting of entries as an example so I don't want it and then walk out and refuse to pay. Or am I misreading this.

Haha! Nice try, but I don't think so somehow - but you got me thinking... I will scour the Act for the relevant clause for software products, if one exists...

Here is an extract of the Act pertaining to the issue I was referring to earlier:

Section C: Para 18 (1): "Despite any statement or notice to the contrary, a consumer is not responsible for any loss or damage to any goods displayed by a supplier, unless the loss or damage results from action by the consumer amounting to gross negligence or recklessness, malicious behaviour or criminal conduct."

Guess it's quite open to interpretation.

[IanF]

Haha! Nice try, but I don't think so somehow - but you got me thinking... I will scour the Act for the relevant clause for software products, if one exists...

Here is an extract of the Act pertaining to the issue I was referring to earlier:

Section C: Para 18 (1): "Despite any statement or notice to the contrary, a consumer is not responsible for any loss or damage to any goods displayed by a supplier, unless the loss or damage results from action by the consumer amounting to gross negligence or recklessness, malicious behaviour or criminal conduct."

Guess it's quite open to interpretation.

Now we are going to have signs like "If you drop or break this it is considered to be gross negligence or recklessness, malicious behaviour and you will be liable!" This could cause conflict if not handled cleverly. It will be interesting to see what develops from this.

[sterne.law@gmail.com]

If you do not like a product you still need to return it.

A good variation on this is where company's send goods (books is a common one) and say if you dont like then return it money back. NO more. They must come and collect it or pay costs to return once you inform them it is a no go!!

[Sparks]

That still leaves Murdock with only R3 but, somehow I suspect that it may be less. I just heard that an elderly man was charged R1 400.00 for an electrical inspection of a small 3 Bedroom house. Amongst other he was told that the cord of his multiplug is too short, the built-in oven cannot be wired directly to the isolator it must have a joint in a box at the back of it)????
How safe is your R3 Murdock?

[Dave A]

I just heard that an elderly man was charged R1 400.00 for an electrical inspection of a small 3 Bedroom house.

I came across a guy who was charging R2000.00 for a 3 bedroom house over 5 years ago
But in that particular case, he did know what he was doing.

Needless to say, he was only doing a couple of tests a month as a result, but he was happy and I guess the clients prepared to foot the bill were too.

Thinking about it, that sort of thing might become an issue with the CPA as well. Who has the right to say a particular fee is overcharging when a quote has been given and duly accepted by the client? A bit rich to be complaining after IMO.

[sterne.law@gmail.com]

This deals with contarctual issues which play a big role in the CPA and consumerism.
Sanctity of contract is important, taht is what you sign for is what goes. You made that choice and decision. The CPA does not want to do away with this element, and this has been made clear. However it does aim to address the issue where we are forced to sign contracts(which in turn makes a contract voidable) examples are clauses like, " cant be held liable for negligience" - a particular favourite of medical field. The argument was always that the person chose to sign the contract and sanctity of contratc muts prevail. Of course the problem is/was that we do not really have a choice in these contracts. Every hospital and doctor has the clause, so we ARE forced.
An electrical quote/work - we have the choice to phone around and elect to whom to award the job, hence the freedom of contratc prevails.