consumer protection act causing price increases?

[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.