Consumer Protection Act Questions

[RS4]

So, heres what I know: If you buy something, you have every right to return it for a refund within 7 days?

What I don't understand: assume you buy a printer cartridge or toner. Use half, return it and from what I understand - You ARE entitled to a refund. I doubt Makro or CNA would be keen to receive a complaint over a printer cartridge!

How does this affect the AV community?:

That being said, people could essentially 'borrow' equipment and return it indefinitely... IE, microphones, projectors, media players, etc.
Things that could have a once off use which will mainly be affected.
Assuming somebody 'buys' a media player from Dion-Wired, has a movie night with some of his tjommies and simply returns it the next day for a full refund??

Seems something is wrong if you ask me.


Please tell me what you think, unless I am wrong somewhere.

[Rodney_gold]

There is a thread in general , where I have listed a site with a synopsis of the act , you can read the actual act for clarity as well
You cannot get a refund if you have had benefit from a product or have cosumed it and return it for no reason, in your printer cart case , you would have to prove a defect of some source and at best would get a partial refund and most likely would have to spend more money on getting the refund than it's worth (if the mnfgr refuses , you gonna have to jump thru hoops to prove it's defective , the onus will be on you to do so)
There is no provsion for returning and getting a refund cos you "don't like" a product and even of co's were to implement this, they would be fully entitled to levy a handling and restocking fee.
In general law , you cannot recieve a benefit and not be liable for payment thereof

[RS4]

Tx Explains it

[Dennis]

http://www.thedti.gov.za/publications/consumer_protection1.PDF
http://www.thedti.gov.za/publications/consumer_protection2.PDF
http://www.thedti.gov.za/publications/consumer_protection3.PDF

[joel]

A retailer can deduct an amont that would be used to get the returned product to as new condition.

For example if the packaging is slightly damaged, (and this happens practically every time you open a box) thay could deduct the price of new packaging from the retail price.

I'm pretty sure we'll see some chancers, and all these idiots will do is force retailers to up their margins a little to compensate for the effort and irritation in taking back stock. 

[Ampdog]

The other side of the coin is the risk for the friendly dealer who 'lends' you say a loudspeaker set to try in your own room. Often over a weekend. I have seen some of the sorry messes returned afterwards, and the dealer having a bundle of work to get (part of) his money back, however straightforward it might seem (often a court case).

One wonders then: Will it be ligitimate for the dealer to charge a (fat) deposit on such a loan, re-payable on receipt of the goods in good order? (I occasionally hire a brush-cutter from a firm on such conditions, which I consider fair.)

[Rodney_gold]

The act does NOT allow you to return goods just cos you don't like them, the goods have to be broken or faulty or not fit for the purpose they were sold for. If you have broken em , thats your problem.
A loudspeaker for instance , is fit for the purpose it was sold/bought for - IE it plays music , if you don't like it , well thats tough. If you take it back cos the drivers are blown , expect a huge fight as to who is responsible.

[Dennis]

not fit for the purpose they were sold for.

The dealer said it would improve my sound, and it does not?

[mafioso]

The dealer said it would improve my sound, and it does not?

You will have to provide evidence you are qualified technically to PROVE "it" does not improve your sound.

mafioso