The Consumer Protection Act

A place to talk about more serious topics such as politics, society and current events.
Forum rules
Please read the discussion section rules before posting in here. By posting in this section, you acknowledge to have read and understood them, and agree to abide by them at all times.

Of course, the global forum rules apply here too.

NOTE: posts in this section are not counted towards your total.
User avatar
Stuart
Lead Forum Administrator
Posts: 38503
Joined: 19 May 2005, 02:00
Location: Home

The Consumer Protection Act

Post by Stuart »

So I'll admit that I actually haven't looked with that great detail into this Act. Following on from the Vodacom is Red thread, however, and in particular Oom Doo's post about the MMS advertising, I figured perhaps a discussion about the Act might be in order.

The act itself can be accessed here. Below, however, is a commentary highlighting some things about it:
Nick Altini and Chris Charter wrote:Under the CPA, it is not only individuals that qualify as consumers (and hence qualify to be protected by the legislation) but also small juristic persons; the idea being that small businesses, many of which are really alter egos of a sole proprietor, are equally vulnerable in the market place and equally deserving of protection. Late in 2010 the long awaited announcement was made that juristic persons with asset or annual turnover values below R3 million would qualify as consumers for CPA purposes. This threshold value seems unduly high, and one would expect businesses which generate that kind of turnover to be well resourced and sophisticated enough to protect themselves without the CPA. A threshold of R 1 million and below strikes one as a more reasonable balance between the interests of suppliers and vulnerable consumers.

FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS
Franchise agreements get special treatment, with an overwhelming number of requirements now stipulated. Some of these requirements are likely to be very difficult to interpret with certainty, such as a stipulation that all franchise agreements must contain a clause about the general principles of honesty and equity that will guide the agreement. Existing franchise agreements that do not comply have six months to be amended failing which the obligations will be read in.

The Act stipulates that the franchise agreement must contain details of various services offered by the franchisor – training, for instance - but does necessarily make it obligatory to provide such services. That said, the regulations do provide a valuable "tick box" list of all the provisions that a legitimate and well-organised franchise operation should have, and this may aid franchisees and lending institutions to identify franchise opportunities that accord with best practice.

DISCLOSURES
The regulations set out a long list of disclosures that an intermediary (which includes an agent for, and possibly a distributor of, goods and services) must make, both to consumers and the principal for whom they act. Amongst other requirements, consumers are entitled to full disclosure as to any money they make out of a business transaction. For example, sales agents, who are not employees of the supplier but independent contractors acting on the suppliers behalf, will need to tell consumers exactly how much commission they make off every sale. In addition, the regulations require intermediaries to disclose any information which "may be relevant" – a vague obligation that will do little to add certainty to an intermediaries obligations. The CPA provides for vicarious liability of a principal for anything done or omitted by the agent in the course of acting on behalf of the principal, so those who make use of agents or distributors will need to be sure that agents are aware of and adhere to the requirements.

DIRECT MARKETING AND THE CPA
Direct marketing is another element of business that is heavily regulated by the CPA. The Act states that all consumers may pre-emptively block any direct marketing attempts. The Protection of Personal Information Bill will also ensure direct marketing by electronic means can’t take place without the express prior consent of the consumer, other than in certain narrow circumstances.

This is great news for harassed consumers, but not good news for the direct marketing industry as the Act and regulations will seriously impede the whole model of direct marketing. In the first instance, although consumers are ostensibly required to "opt out" of direct marketing by registering their details with a registry to be established, the regulations require marketers to assume that a consumer has opted out unless and until the registry has confirmed in writing that the consumer in question has not acted to block direct marketing. Any request for such confirmation must be copied to the consumer, effectively giving her a further opportunity to pre-empt direct marketing. In terms of the regulations, even paper junk mail is a form of direct marketing and consumers have the right to pre-emptively block junk mail from being placed in their post boxes by placing a "no junk mail" notice to this effect on the box. Direct marketers may also not contact consumers directly after 9pm on a weekday, or after 12 noon on a Saturday, and not at all on a Sunday or public holiday.

A likely downfall of the regulations is their reliance on a variety of human interveners (consumers, registries, postal workers, marketers, the regulator) for implementation. The possibility of human error at any stage could result in a breakdown of the intended regime. The regulations also give parents of those under 18 the exclusive right to block (or un-block) access to direct marketing to their wards – even if the minor concerned approves or even solicits direct marketing material.

The R1 THRESHOLD
The regulations have set at merely R1.00 the threshold value above which all repair or maintenance services must be expressly pre-authorised by consumers. This means that consumers will in virtually every instance have to be furnished with a written estimate of costs, which must be accepted in writing before the repair can be done. The supplier will not be able to exceed the quote without authorization from the consumer prior to continuing the work. This will increase paperwork and administration for both suppliers and consumers.

CANCELLATION OF BOOKINGS
The CPA also stipulates that all consumers have the right to cancel advance reservations, bookings and others (other than for special order goods) and that cancellation fees that are charged by hotels and airlines, for example have to be reasonable.

In many cases, if a consumer books a hotel stay or a flight, they are charged a cancellation fee if they decide to cancel. The CPA states that the consumer is entitled to cancel his booking and the cancellation fee charged should take into account the likelihood of the hotel or airline finding an alternative customer.

Airlines mostly have a rigid termination policy; the CPA states that this policy must take into account the timing of the cancellation. If there is more than enough time to find a new buyer for the hotel room or air ticket, then the cancellation fee should be paid back almost in full. If it’s a last minute cancellation, then a bigger fee can be charged.

The regulations add to the suppliers woes, by providing that where a consumer cancels a fixed term contract (for example, a cell phone contract) the maximum amount that may be charged in respect of the unexpired portion of the contract is 10% of what would have been payable.

OUTLAWED BUSINESS PRACTICES
The regulations describe a number of business practices that are now outlawed or heavily regulated – including offering speculative software (claiming to predict movements in share prices or winning horses), property syndication schemes, alternative work schemes and the bane of the internet, so-called 419 schemes. Interestingly, in the latter case, for a consumer to become involved in a 419 scheme is as illegal as offering one.

The regulations' approach to genetically modified foodstuffs is interesting. Currently, it seems that only suppliers of maize, soya bean and "imported" canola oil must disclose where the product is likely to subject to genetic modification. However, there are no requirements to disclose what, if any, dangers arise from genetic modification thereby contributing to the demonization of GM foods. Moreover, the regulations are less than clear about whether products made from the list of goods must include a similar disclosure.

PROMOTIONAL COMPETITIONS
The regulations serve to clarify that for promotional competitions entered via sms, the costs of the sms may not exceed the minimum that a consumer is likely to pay for an ordinary sms message, thus ending the practice of inflating the costs of an sms to cover the costs of the promotion. Furthermore, consumers that qualify for a prize of a value greater than R1.00 must sign an acknowledgement of receipt of the prize or giveaway, and supply their ID number.

GREY GOODS
Unfortunately, the regulations turn out to be a bit soft on so-called grey-goods or parallel imports. Many legitimate importers and their suppliers had expected the regulations to stipulate a clear notice that goods have been imported without the authorization of the manufacturer, which may impact on the validity of the manufacturer's warranty. In their current form, the regulations merely deal with reconditioned and rebuilt goods, leaving purchasers of grey goods none the wiser, and legitimate importers unprotected.

AUCTIONS
Auctions will also be heavily regulated. Among the more interesting developments is the general obligation to keep records of all bidders (including bids over the internet and where a bidder acts on behalf of another) thus doing away with the concept of an anonymous bidder. Apart from very limited circumstances, all auction lots must be advertised to the general public. It will also be illegal to advertise an auction as a "sale in execution" or "insolvency auction" unless true.

UNFAIR TERMS AND CONDITIONS
The regulations also contain a long list of terms and conditions that are indicated as being most likely unfair and unreasonable, and hence should not appear in consumer agreements but this is stated to be “indicative only” as well as "non-exhaustive" - placing an element of uncertainty into what businesses can put into an agreement and how clauses will be treated. In a peculiar throwback, certain key communications that may "be of interest to the consumer" must be delivered by pre-paid registered post – thus precluding the use of email, increasing expenses for suppliers and hassle for the consumer.

THE OBLIGATION TO EDUCATE
The Consumer Commission has an obligation to educate the consumers as to what their rights are in terms of the CPA. This is essential as the CPA, and particularly the emphasis on alternative dispute resolution over court action, will be for naught unless consumers and suppliers are aware of its intricacies, which now include a complex set of regulations. The Commission has its work cut out for it, and will need to spend the first few years getting people to understand the Act at least as much as pushing compliance.

NO ROOM FOR COMPLACENCY
One thing about the dawning era of consumer protection is certain. There is no room for complacency. Every business transacting with consumers needs to take a long hard look at its products, services, business methodologies and terms of trade. The consequences of non-compliance can be serious and with other state regulators leading the way in demanding complete compliance with the law, while punishing non-observance heavily (just look at the Competition Commission's recent track record) there is no reason to believe that the Consumer Commission won't follow suit.
Image
User avatar
Stuart
Lead Forum Administrator
Posts: 38503
Joined: 19 May 2005, 02:00
Location: Home

Re: The Consumer Protection Act

Post by Stuart »

In terms of the regulations, even paper junk mail is a form of direct marketing and consumers have the right to pre-emptively block junk mail from being placed in their post boxes by placing a "no junk mail" notice to this effect on the box.
Anyone see this working?
Image
Siemens
Registered User
Posts: 2812
Joined: 01 Jul 2005, 02:00
Location: somewhere over the rainbow where katie melua is running from me.

Re: The Consumer Protection Act

Post by Siemens »

Stuart wrote:
In terms of the regulations, even paper junk mail is a form of direct marketing and consumers have the right to pre-emptively block junk mail from being placed in their post boxes by placing a "no junk mail" notice to this effect on the box.
Anyone see this working?
Will we be allowed to take them to court should they ignore it?

Edit: lol imagine that. Sueing a company for putting a piece of paper in a mailbox.
Image
"Friends are a lot like potatoes. If you eat them they die." - Stuart
User avatar
Stuart
Lead Forum Administrator
Posts: 38503
Joined: 19 May 2005, 02:00
Location: Home

Re: The Consumer Protection Act

Post by Stuart »

First try to explain to the guy they've hired to deliver the post that he's not allowed to put it in your post box.
Image
Siemens
Registered User
Posts: 2812
Joined: 01 Jul 2005, 02:00
Location: somewhere over the rainbow where katie melua is running from me.

Re: The Consumer Protection Act

Post by Siemens »

Most of them can't even read so I see the problem.
Image
"Friends are a lot like potatoes. If you eat them they die." - Stuart
SykomantiS
Registered User
Posts: 14085
Joined: 06 Oct 2004, 02:00
Location: Location, Location...
Contact:

Re: The Consumer Protection Act

Post by SykomantiS »

Stuart wrote:The regulations add to the suppliers woes, by providing that where a consumer cancels a fixed term contract (for example, a cell phone contract) the maximum amount that may be charged in respect of the unexpired portion of the contract is 10% of what would have been payable.
So.... If I have a cell contract, with a year left, let's say, at R300 p.m, If I cancel, they may only charge me a fee of R300 * 12 *0.1 = R360? Is this correct?

Also stu,
Stuart wrote: The act itself can be accessed here. Below, however, is a commentary highlighting some things about it:
Wrong link perhaps?
StarBound
Registered Pervert
Posts: 6879
Joined: 30 Jul 2004, 02:00
Processor: Intel i7 4790k
Motherboard: MSI Z97 Gaming 7
Graphics card: MSI GTX780Ti Gaming
Memory: G.Skill Sniper 1866mhz 16GB
Location: The Greater Unknown
Contact:

Re: The Consumer Protection Act

Post by StarBound »

As far as hotel booking and airplane tickets are concerned if its not an SA company or SA hotel am I right to say that this doesnt apply to say Brittish Airways or a hotel in France? Because these companies are after all bound by their countries laws and if there is confliction about it it will be ruled in favour of the residence of the company in question? I know that BA has to meet some some SA legislation but they can always say the deal was made between the SA citizan and the UK company which is situated in UK and as such falls under the UK law.
My Steam Screenshots

I lived the dream ...then my PC died.
DeathStrike
Registered User
Posts: 2663
Joined: 29 Jul 2004, 02:00
Location: hidden deep in the depths of the underworld is my home.
Contact:

Re: The Consumer Protection Act

Post by DeathStrike »

SykomantiS wrote:
Stuart wrote:The regulations add to the suppliers woes, by providing that where a consumer cancels a fixed term contract (for example, a cell phone contract) the maximum amount that may be charged in respect of the unexpired portion of the contract is 10% of what would have been payable.
So.... If I have a cell contract, with a year left, let's say, at R300 p.m, If I cancel, they may only charge me a fee of R300 * 12 *0.1 = R360? Is this correct?
No.

Only contracts entered into from the 1st of April 2011 can be terminated like that.

The old terms and conditions apply to your current contract.

Also i am happy to report that on the radio they were discussing this and they said the compaines are no longer allowed to place signs that say NO REFUNDS and all stores that do this are in for a rude awakening once people start taking them to court over it. :P

The consumer now has the right to choose between Refund, Replacement and :sick: Repair.

Don't see why anyone would choose Repair...
Spoiler: (show)
Image
SIG by HMAN 8)
Member of The Pride Of Darkness
DeathStrike on Twitter
About me
Spoiler: (show)
Asus P5KPL-CM motherboard, 4 GIG RAM, Q6600 @ 2.88GHz (Thanks Anthro), GeForce 8600GT, Samsung 2333 23" + CRT 17" Monitors. 500GB + 1.5TB HDD, Compro TV tuner, 350 WATT PSU
SykomantiS
Registered User
Posts: 14085
Joined: 06 Oct 2004, 02:00
Location: Location, Location...
Contact:

Re: The Consumer Protection Act

Post by SykomantiS »

hmmm :?
Oh well. Another year to slug it out...
StarBound
Registered Pervert
Posts: 6879
Joined: 30 Jul 2004, 02:00
Processor: Intel i7 4790k
Motherboard: MSI Z97 Gaming 7
Graphics card: MSI GTX780Ti Gaming
Memory: G.Skill Sniper 1866mhz 16GB
Location: The Greater Unknown
Contact:

Re: The Consumer Protection Act

Post by StarBound »

DeathStrike wrote: Also i am happy to report that on the radio they were discussing this and they said the compaines are no longer allowed to place signs that say NO REFUNDS and all stores that do this are in for a rude awakening once people start taking them to court over it. :P

The consumer now has the right to choose between Refund, Replacement and Repair.
So go out, buy something, take in and say refund? Buy a game and say you want a refund after the things cd key has been used?

There is going to be so much problems with this one. But hopefully by june all companies would have gone out of business and those companies can sue government for total upkeep on all staff and annual increases.
My Steam Screenshots

I lived the dream ...then my PC died.
StarBound
Registered Pervert
Posts: 6879
Joined: 30 Jul 2004, 02:00
Processor: Intel i7 4790k
Motherboard: MSI Z97 Gaming 7
Graphics card: MSI GTX780Ti Gaming
Memory: G.Skill Sniper 1866mhz 16GB
Location: The Greater Unknown
Contact:

Re: The Consumer Protection Act

Post by StarBound »

http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/ ... -1.1051621
The final regulations, which flesh out a lot of the detail in the Act, should have been ‘out’ weeks ago, to give companies time to comply - but they only appeared in the Government Gazette on Friday afternoon, half a day after the Act came into force.

Fail! as my kids would say. And the consequence is that the Dti is going to have to be lenient with companies which don’t comply for the next few months.

Speaking of kids, last week my son became the proud owner of a brand of shoes he and his peers currently consider to be cool.

On the inside of the shoe box, the following is printed: “X shoes are manufactured to the highest quality standards available in the industry. They are under warranty against manufacturing defects for a period of 30 days from the date of purchase. Any defective merchandise claim from the customer must be handled by the retailer.”

I’m quite sure the same shoes are being sold in the same box today, but that warranty is now absolutely meaningless, because Section 56 of the Consumer Protection Act gives consumers the right to return any defective goods to the supplier within SIX MONTHS of purchase. And the consumer gets to decide whether they want a refund, replacement or repair.

And if they opt for a repair and the product fails again within three months, the supplier is obliged to refund the customer or replace the item.

In other words, the supplier can’t insist on repeated repairs, which, being the cheapest option for the supplier, is what’s been happening in the marketplace up to now. What’s also been happening is that some suppliers on the dodgier end of the spectrum have refused to take back defective goods back at all.

(Remember, this Act does not compel suppliers to take back goods at all if they are not defective.)

I predict this ‘implied warranty of quality’ will be one of the most contentious, problematic aspects of the Act, because the Act requires the goods to be “in good working order and free of any defects” for at least six months, “having regard to the use to which they would normally be put to…”

In other words, if - as happened in a case that came my way a few years ago – a rather large husband leaps onto the armrest of a sofa in order to kill a bug that his wife was terrified of, and the armrest breaks, the supplier could quite rightly refuse to honour a warranty claim, as the armrest was intended to support an arm, not the full weight of a 150kg man.

As it happened, the man in question confessed to his moment of madness and expected to pay the lounge suite manufacturer for the repair, but the manufacturer insisted on doing it free of charge as a goodwill gesture.

That’s the best case scenario in consumerland – a totally honest consumer and a supplier who has an extremely high regard for his customers and is willing to go the extra mile to make them happy.

But it’s not always that way, I’m afraid. So I anticipate suppliers insisting on having allegedly defective goods assessed and then telling the consumer that they have discovered signs of user abuse. And that, sorry, but you can’t have that repair, replacement or refund.

Then what? Then the consumer will have the right to complain to the National Consumer Commission – details below – and that body will have to make the tricky call on whether the problem was caused by defect or abuse.

Like most pieces of legislation, the Act is silent on many practical issues.

In this case, it says nothing about the supplier’s right to examine goods that consumers return, demanding a refund, repair or replacement.

The PRO of a large retailer contacted me last week, asking if they’d still be allowed to have such products assessed. “For example, people buy drills which are labeled as being for domestic use, and they use them on big commercial jobs, and then they bring them back, broken,” she said. “We can only determine abuse if we open up the drill – the customer service desk personnel can’t make that call,” she said. “And if we do send the product for assessment, what time period would be considered fair – seven working days?”

Who knows?

The more expensive the item, the trickier this section of the Act will be to apply.

Crs are going to be the biggest problem. Clearly if someone returns a car claiming that it’s defective in some way, and demands a refund, the dealer is going to insist that the car be properly examined.

Again, the Act doesn’t make provision for this, or require the supplier – the dealer in this case – to ensure that the consumer has alternative transport during a process which could take weeks.

Sam Robertson of consumer law firm Roberton Teuteberg Kirk said many companies were concerned that “vexatious consumers” would deliberately construct defects in order to get refunds in terms of Section 56.

If the supplier can prove this, the consumer could be charged with fraud, he said.

Now there’s a sobering thought. There are indeed a number of ethically challenged consumers out there who will no doubt seize on this Act as a means to get companies to give them recourse they are not entitled to.

They are undoubtedly a tiny minority, but they have the potential to muck it up for the rest of us in terms of ‘extra mile’ behaviour on the part of companies.

Ultimately, only when this Act has been tested by real cases, and precedents set, will it offer full guidance to consumers and suppliers alike.

Meanwhile, if you want to enjoy the rights and protections of the Act, get into the habit of documenting your consumer experiences. That begins with keeping all your receipts - including supermarket slips – and making careful notes of your dealings with companies.

You’d think that now that the Act is a reality, consumers would be able to type the words “National Consumer Commission” – the Act’s prime enforcement body – into an Internet search engine, and its website would top the search results’ list.

But you’d be wrong. At the time of writing, there was no website and no email address available.

Even in the final regulations, published on Friday afternoon, in the section outlining how a consumer can lay a complaint of an alleged contravention of the Act, there are big blanks where the physical address, email address, website and postal address should be.

In the meantime, here’s a phone number and fax number for the Commission offices: 0860 266 786 or fax: 0861 515259. - Pretoria News
Generally this is where all imports stops. If say something like software is defective ...and with developers these days that is 95% the case you could return a game like call of duty because it fails to retrieve your profile. They can bring out a patch in a day or 2 but for that time you can take it back and claim a full refund. Value could simply say it's too hard to promise this with steam games and just cut SA off the list completely.

Moving on to comsumeables, if used its used and no refund can be given. Even if not used what happens if a consumer purchase something on purpose, including saying you want something and it has to be retrieved and is unreturnable, then the company still has to refund although no sale will come from it? In that case a company could perhapes take on the consumer on the ground of willfull damage to a company and not on a defective product.

This Act is groundless. It addresses the issues that should be held to sellers and retailers by default. I am wondering if this act isnt based for government officials as grounds to replace all those 4x4s and 1mil tailoring expenses.
My Steam Screenshots

I lived the dream ...then my PC died.
senile
Registered User
Posts: 471
Joined: 05 Mar 2008, 02:00

Re: The Consumer Protection Act

Post by senile »

Is this coincidence or what? Siemens, may you please stop sending me junk mail. I don't understand what you are trying to say to me.
Siemens
Registered User
Posts: 2812
Joined: 01 Jul 2005, 02:00
Location: somewhere over the rainbow where katie melua is running from me.

Re: The Consumer Protection Act

Post by Siemens »

??? What?
Image
"Friends are a lot like potatoes. If you eat them they die." - Stuart
IcePick88
Registered User
Posts: 1341
Joined: 18 Mar 2008, 02:00
Location: KZN
Contact:

Re: The Consumer Protection Act

Post by IcePick88 »

I think this is brilliant!

It's high time the consumer got some decent rights. There will be some that want to abuse it, but suppliers should be on the lookout for obvious signs.

Other than that, I like this. :thumbleft:
CPU: AMD Phenom II X2 555 (OC'ed to 3.8Ghz)
CPU Cooler: CM Hyper TX3 P/P
GPU: Sapphire Radeon HD5850
Motherboard: Asus M4A785T-M
Memory: 4GB Corsair XMS3 DDR3 1333
Case: Zalman Z7
Display: Samsung Syncmaster 2243BWX
StarBound
Registered Pervert
Posts: 6879
Joined: 30 Jul 2004, 02:00
Processor: Intel i7 4790k
Motherboard: MSI Z97 Gaming 7
Graphics card: MSI GTX780Ti Gaming
Memory: G.Skill Sniper 1866mhz 16GB
Location: The Greater Unknown
Contact:

Re: The Consumer Protection Act

Post by StarBound »

I don't. I work in retail. I'm still waiting on the law that says if I find someone stealing I have the right to shoot them there and then. That "some" btw are too big a number in SA. If this was australia I wouldnt worry because there people still live by a moral code. Here people just blame appartheid or the guy next door.
My Steam Screenshots

I lived the dream ...then my PC died.
DeathStrike
Registered User
Posts: 2663
Joined: 29 Jul 2004, 02:00
Location: hidden deep in the depths of the underworld is my home.
Contact:

Re: The Consumer Protection Act

Post by DeathStrike »

Well regardless i still think this is a great thing...

How many times haven't you or someone you know walked into HiFi Corp to buy a dvd player, microwave, etc.

Only to find that it breaks 2 weeks later and you try to take it back and they give you s*** and tell you no they can only send it away for repairs.

I for one will be using HiFi corp more so that i can get them back for all the times.

I still have a set of rechargeable batteries and charger that stopped working 3 weeks after date of purchase.

they charge whole night and last 5 mins the next day.

SO please nobody tell me that the poor retailers will loose business.

they will get more and if their stuff is of quality will keep my money. but if they give me k** then i will come back to claim.
Spoiler: (show)
Image
SIG by HMAN 8)
Member of The Pride Of Darkness
DeathStrike on Twitter
About me
Spoiler: (show)
Asus P5KPL-CM motherboard, 4 GIG RAM, Q6600 @ 2.88GHz (Thanks Anthro), GeForce 8600GT, Samsung 2333 23" + CRT 17" Monitors. 500GB + 1.5TB HDD, Compro TV tuner, 350 WATT PSU
IcePick88
Registered User
Posts: 1341
Joined: 18 Mar 2008, 02:00
Location: KZN
Contact:

Re: The Consumer Protection Act

Post by IcePick88 »

DeathStrike wrote:Well regardless i still think this is a great thing...

How many times haven't you or someone you know walked into HiFi Corp to buy a dvd player, microwave, etc.

Only to find that it breaks 2 weeks later and you try to take it back and they give you s*** and tell you no they can only send it away for repairs.

I for one will be using HiFi corp more so that i can get them back for all the times.

I still have a set of rechargeable batteries and charger that stopped working 3 weeks after date of purchase.

they charge whole night and last 5 mins the next day.

SO please nobody tell me that the poor retailers will loose business.

they will get more and if their stuff is of quality will keep my money. but if they give me k** then i will come back to claim.
+1

But this act only applies to anything bought after 1 April 2011. :thumbright:
CPU: AMD Phenom II X2 555 (OC'ed to 3.8Ghz)
CPU Cooler: CM Hyper TX3 P/P
GPU: Sapphire Radeon HD5850
Motherboard: Asus M4A785T-M
Memory: 4GB Corsair XMS3 DDR3 1333
Case: Zalman Z7
Display: Samsung Syncmaster 2243BWX
User avatar
rustypup
Registered User
Posts: 8872
Joined: 13 Dec 2004, 02:00
Location: nullus pixius demonica
Contact:

Re: The Consumer Protection Act

Post by rustypup »

DeathStrike wrote:HiFi Corp
it's hifi corp... they plug grey product... is this surprising? no. if you don't want bovine stools, don't buy bovine stools.
DeathStrike wrote:SO please nobody tell me that the poor retailers will loose business.
quite so. they will up their price point to cover the influx of silliness. #NOTWINNING

everyone who imagines the act is a good thing, hands in the air...

*waits*

kindly stay after class so we can reassess your critical faculties...
Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so - Bertrand Russel
User avatar
Stuart
Lead Forum Administrator
Posts: 38503
Joined: 19 May 2005, 02:00
Location: Home

Re: The Consumer Protection Act

Post by Stuart »

rustypup wrote:everyone who imagines the act is a good thing, hands in the air...

*waits*

kindly stay after class so we can reassess your critical faculties...
Clearly it wasn't thought out as well as it ought to have been, and there is certainly room for abuse. However, if some of the aspects of it work as they are supposed to, there is some benefit to it.
Image
Bladerunner
Registered User
Posts: 14338
Joined: 04 Sep 2004, 02:00
Processor: i386DX Sooper
Motherboard: A blue one
Graphics card: A red one
Memory: Hard drive
Location: On a Möbius strip
Contact:

Re: The Consumer Protection Act

Post by Bladerunner »

It's an excellent way of telling retailers to shove their attitudes and serve customers with quality goods and services.
If I weren't insane: I couldn't be so brilliant! - The Joker
User avatar
rustypup
Registered User
Posts: 8872
Joined: 13 Dec 2004, 02:00
Location: nullus pixius demonica
Contact:

Re: The Consumer Protection Act

Post by rustypup »

Bladerunner wrote:It's an excellent way of telling retailers to shove their attitudes and serve customers with quality goods and services.
disagree. customers dictate what quality they're willing to settle for via their wallets. supply and demand, (also sam vimes' theory of economic injustice). the assumption that we will all magically be provided the bestest of best quality at flea market prices is hilarious.

the bulk of the act is built around the fact that consumers refuse to accept responsibility for their inability to function as cognitive units.
Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so - Bertrand Russel
User avatar
Stuart
Lead Forum Administrator
Posts: 38503
Joined: 19 May 2005, 02:00
Location: Home

Re: The Consumer Protection Act

Post by Stuart »

rustypup wrote:
Bladerunner wrote:It's an excellent way of telling retailers to shove their attitudes and serve customers with quality goods and services.
disagree. customers dictate what quality they're willing to settle for via their wallets. supply and demand, (also sam vimes' theory of economic injustice). the assumption that we will all magically be provided the bestest of best quality at flea market prices is hilarious.

the bulk of the act is built around the fact that consumers refuse to accept responsibility for their inability to function as cognitive units.
Agreed, rusty, but don't tell me that you've never in all your time as a South African consumer been on the receiving end of poor service, which guidelines like this would help resolve. Assuming it all works properly.
Image
User avatar
rustypup
Registered User
Posts: 8872
Joined: 13 Dec 2004, 02:00
Location: nullus pixius demonica
Contact:

Re: The Consumer Protection Act

Post by rustypup »

of course i've had bad service/product delivery.... the trick is retaining a sense of proportionate response.. i have personally witnessed, on multiple separate occasions, consumers tearing open product on shelf, (don't ask), and removing stock.

that product becomes "damaged" and is return the the manufacturer as such. the manufacturer cannot possibly absorb the replacement/recovery costs this issue presents so ups their price to the retailer who naturally reciprocates and passes that on to the consumer. so the consumer still pays. it may be indirect and there may be a fair deal of rubber-banding but the consumer pays.

now imagine what the natural outcome will be when we expose the retailer and the supplier to the sort of abuse that this act endorses? if you think it's expensive now, give it a year....

frankly, the entire act carries the stench of retarded socialism dressed in drag.... the responsibility for service delivery rests solely with the consumer. if you can't figure out how to shop elsewhere or how to complain, you're probably only half-aware anyway...
Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so - Bertrand Russel
Siemens
Registered User
Posts: 2812
Joined: 01 Jul 2005, 02:00
Location: somewhere over the rainbow where katie melua is running from me.

Re: The Consumer Protection Act

Post by Siemens »

Carte Blanch has been going on about how awesome this act is for more than a year now(I think). I understand Rusty's point however there's always two sides to a coin. I believe this act will be much more to our benefit than towards our disadvantage. Hopefully this will also put more pressure on the manufacturers to induce better quality control on their product.
Image
"Friends are a lot like potatoes. If you eat them they die." - Stuart
StarBound
Registered Pervert
Posts: 6879
Joined: 30 Jul 2004, 02:00
Processor: Intel i7 4790k
Motherboard: MSI Z97 Gaming 7
Graphics card: MSI GTX780Ti Gaming
Memory: G.Skill Sniper 1866mhz 16GB
Location: The Greater Unknown
Contact:

Re: The Consumer Protection Act

Post by StarBound »

Siemens wrote:Carte Blanch has been going on about how awesome this act is for more than a year now(I think). I understand Rusty's point however there's always two sides to a coin. I believe this act will be much more to our benefit than towards our disadvantage. Hopefully this will also put more pressure on the manufacturers to induce better quality control on their product.
No because at the end of the day the manufacturer remains untouched and it is the retailer that carries the loss. Using ourselves as an example a woman walked into our store with her dog and allowed her dog to piss on stock that was being packed. She out right refused to pay for the damages/loss of sales do to actions from her side. That's the kind of mentality that SA has. No responsibility.
Now take another example when I was on tour in Italy. Someone walked into a glass shop with a back pack. The pack snagged onto one of shelves and broke all the glass figurines. The woman behind the counter walks up and shouts at the customer as she picks up the glass "Broken! Broken! Broken!" and then hands him a bill for the damaged goods. Our shop has a no pets allowed sign and that shop had the sign "if it breaks its sold".

I am honestly fearing the effects of this act due to its nature in which it is written. As a gamer of sides I've already said this will including all purchases over digital channels and if foreign companies has problems with it they will simply withdraw instead of handing out free goods. Most if not all our quality goods are imported. I can see ourselves in a retail position where we will put up signs saying by crossing this line and entering the store and purchasing from here instead of the guy down the street you denounce all accountability to the act or take your money else where.

But we will see what comes of this. But as it stands this is a completely 1 sided act that will most likely benefit those who abuse it.
My Steam Screenshots

I lived the dream ...then my PC died.
Post Reply