# Regulatory Compliance Category > Consumer Protection Act Forum >  Consumer protection act starts biting.

## Dave A

From today _(25 April 2010)_, you have the right, without having to prove negligence, to claim damages from a company if you suffer physical harm or financial loss because it supplied you with a defective product. We report on two provisions in the long-awaited Consumer Protection Act (CPA) that have come into effect.

If you suffer any injury or harm as a result of an unsafe or defective product bought from today, you have the right to claim damages from the company responsible under the CPA.

A provision of the CPA that takes effect from today and that affects you, the consumer, is the "no-fault" liability of companies for harm or damage as a result of an unsafe or a defective product.

full story from Personal Finance here

----------


## Erika Gordon

Very good,  

How will the courts enforce it?  Lets look at a policy that FS sold as "guaranteed returns" suddenly lost value.  There is an economic loss but not due to illness, death or injury.  Can this stand in court?

Lets look at energy:  Power outages and restaurants suffered spoiled food.  Economic loss but not due to illness, death or injury.

What about non-service delivery ...

----------


## tec0

Yes this is very good! I just wonder if you got a car that is defective and was sold to you anyway if that will also fall under this law. Because A> driving without lights is illegal and a massif risk to your health and B> it is unbelievably costly to repair.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Dave A

> How will the courts enforce it?


That seems to be the big question. The legislation implies that it is up to the courts to set precedent. How are we supposed to second guess where the courts might draw the line in this?

----------


## leuce

> From today _(25 April 2010)_, you have the right, without having to prove negligence, to claim damages from a company if you suffer physical harm or financial loss because it supplied you with a defective product. We report on two provisions in the long-awaited Consumer Protection Act (CPA) that have come into effect.


The customer doesn't have to prove negligence but he does have to prove that the harm or loss was caused by a defect in the product.

[Aside: If your product is a computer file (e.g. a Word document) and the file contains a virus, then your product is unsafe.  The fact that you checked the file for viruses beforehand is not relevant because proving non-negligence is no longer a valid defense.  I guess this is where professional liability insurance comes in...]

I wonder what this will do to freelancers, such as translators or graphic artists whose product is electronic (let's exclude for the moment freelancers who provide physical things like printed artwork, instead of just PDFs or DOCs, because printed artwork can be unsafe under certain circumstances -- don't ask!).

Physical harm can't come from their products, but financial harm can.  And I don't think their products can ever be unsafe, they can definitely be defective.  And defects in their products lead to financial harm... BIG financial harm.

A translator may charge R500 for the translation of something that, if defective, may lead to millions of rands' worth of financial harm.  So the ratio between the income from the product and the potential loss from it is very unequal.

The new says that the customer must prove that the product is defective, but if there is uncertainty (or if the existence of the defect is based on opinion rather than fact), who has the biggest burden of proof -- the customer or the product provider?

----------


## tec0

First of all consumer protection law is useless. I tested the law in a situation where the supplier abused the product and in the end it cost us thousands to repair. This law did not protect us. So it is worthless  :Mad:

----------


## leuce

> First of all consumer protection law is useless. I tested the law in a situation where...


The fact that the law failed to protect you as a customer doesn't mean the law will fail to protect one of your customers against you.  It is irresponsible business practice to make such an assumption.

----------


## Dave A

In legal application, the word "injury" refers to *any* harm, damage or loss, not just in a medical or physical sense.



> I tested the law in a situation where the supplier abused the product and in the end it cost us thousands to repair.


The *supplier* abused the product? You've lost me  :Confused:

----------


## leuce

> In legal application, the word "injury" refers to *any* harm, damage or loss, not just in a medical or physical sense.


Sure, but the original quote does not mention injury.  It says "physical harm", which is is injury in the common sense.  Are you saying that the law protects consumers against all kinds of harm?

----------


## Dave A

> Sure, but the original quote does not mention injury.  It says "physical harm", which is is injury in the common sense.  Are you saying that the law protects consumers against all kinds of harm?


The original article says "physical harm *or* financial loss" which are elements of "injury". 

I suspect we debate this at crossed purposes though - the point was intended as a response to this post:



> Very good,  
> 
> How will the courts enforce it?  Lets look at a policy that FS sold as "guaranteed returns" suddenly lost value.  There is an economic loss but not due to illness, death or injury.  Can this stand in court?
> 
> Lets look at energy:  Power outages and restaurants suffered spoiled food.  Economic loss but not due to illness, death or injury.
> 
> What about non-service delivery ...


My apologies for any confusion caused.

----------


## murdock

would i be able to sue kentucky...i purchased a roll with gravy inside it...they must have left it in the microwave for toooo long...it burnt my chin and down my neck that i had a blister...when i contacted KFC they replied telling me to be careful in future sometimes their products are hot... :Mad: 
the staff at the counter found it rather amusing...i didnt.

i dont know why they have to make the stuff so hot...sometimes the coffee is so hot you get to your destination and still cant drink it...maybe they dont understand the difference between warm and high on the microwave.

----------


## Dave A

> would i be able to sue kentucky...


Somebody has to be first  :Stick Out Tongue: 

Did you go to a doctor and have it examined. You're sure to need a witness, preferably an expert for evidence.

----------


## sterne.law@gmail.com

No doubt you have a case. You do not even need the consumer protection act.
Best case in point - McDonalds being sued because the coffee was hot an dthe lady spilt on her.

Of course we will need to show that you were not negligient in your eating habits. LOL

----------


## SilverNodashi

Has anyone used this yet, and how did it turn out?

----------


## sterne.law@gmail.com

The act is not fully operational, only certain components. October is the BIG day. I have some concern in that the commisions and tribunal vehicles are not yet established. In fact the postion of Commisioner and deputy commisioner were only advertised this Sunday in the Sunday times.

----------


## tec0

Anything that is hot as in able to do bodily harm must have a label on it. 

Secondly if the consumer council is able to allow the public to have access to these new laws than that on its own can be considered a miracle.  :Innocent: 

I fear it is a lot of fancy words and empty promises. In short my experiences as of late are if you do have case you will need a lawyer the end. And if you cannot afford a lawyer you donât have a case...  :Stick Out Tongue: 

The law and systems like the consumer protection act is for the privileged few.   :Frown:

----------


## Hane

I'm all for consumer protection laws but who protects the suppliers from malicious consumers?

----------


## murdock

what ablout...i have a law and dyou...legal wise  :Big Grin: 

anyone had any experience with this crowd?

----------


## Dave A

I did a presentation at PestBiz on the CPA - seemed to be well thought of judging by the feedback.

The starting point went something like this:



> How many of you have been sued by a customer in the last ten years? (no hands went up)
> 
> How many of you have had to deal with complaints from customers in the last year? (over half the room)
> 
> ...OK - that's most of us, and I assume the rest of you don't have customers. 
> 
> Right, for those of you who are employers - how many of you have had to go to the CCMA in the last ten years? (over half the room)
> 
> Now think back to the time before the LRA - how many of you *ever* got *sued* by an employee? (no hands)
> ...


It really is a pretty sobering thought.

----------


## BusFact

> The act is not fully operational, only certain components. October is the BIG day. I have some concern in that the commisions and tribunal vehicles are not yet established. In fact the postion of Commisioner and deputy commisioner were only advertised this Sunday in the Sunday times.


Read an article somewhere today which reckons the minister has the authority to delay the October launch by 6 months and is likely to do just that. Lets see.

----------


## AndyD

> Anything that is hot as in able to do bodily harm must have a label on it.(


Sometimes I think we'd be better of removing all warning labels from electrical panels, cigarette lighters and coffee cups, to name but a few, and let Darwinian natural selection weed some of the idiots out of the gene pool. :Big Grin:

----------

IanF (26-Aug-10)

----------


## sterne.law@gmail.com

Nice intro Dave... And as said before..The CPA will do for consumers what teh LRA and CCMA did for employees

----------

