# Regulatory Compliance Category > Consumer Protection Act Forum >  Breach Of Contract

## Protege2

On 21October 2011 a sales person from Daves Car Sales showed me an Audi A3 2.0T on sale. After test driving the car and showing an interest in I specifically asked him 

whether the car was involved in an accident before. He assured me that the car had not been involved in an accident. On 22 October 2011 my uncle went to their premises 

to view the car. He also asked the sales person if the car had been involved in any accident that might have resulted in panel beating and the answer was negative. After 

purchasing the car and taking delivery, sent the car to an Audi Dealership for service with a specific instruction on whether there any tell tales of the car having been 

involved in an accident. To my shock and surprise, the report I got indicated that the car had indeed been in an accident and that the work done on it was not sanctioned 

under the Audi warranty as should have been the case. I would like to understand from them if this misrepresentation was done with their knowledge and in either case what 

redress you would see fit as their faithful customer who took their representative's word as honest and based my decision to acquire the vehicle under that 

understanding. If the car was in an accident I would not have bothered at all. The car is barely a month old in my possession.

The dealership in question then told me to take up my concern with the IDA. After having doing so, they came back to me and informed me that the owner's wife had 

knocked the car. 

The IDA said i need to take back the car which i agreed but the dealership wants to charge me R16 467 which is a large amount for me to be paying to for a car which

has quite simply caused me pain and suffering due to their negligence and dishonesty. In the sales agreement I was told that the car had never been in an accident and 

now I am expected to either live with the car in the condition that it's in or return the car and pay the dealership for the inconvenience they have caused me.


This is how the dealership came up to that figure:




Value of vehicle                        R 169 950,00

SARS fixed cost                        R 66440

Period of ownership                   3 Months

Factor                                     3 Divided by 12 = 0.25

Kilometres covered                     7482

Fixed cost x factor                     66440  x 0.25 = 16610 divided by 7482 kms

=  2.2c per kilometre = Usage cost for customer account.

Thus the amount that can be claimed for usage of the vehicle is R16467



To pay over R 5 489.00 pm for "rental" of a car that I bought in good faith with the dealership is ridiculous. My monthly instalments on the car is not that much, how can I 

be expected to pay more than double for the car? 

When I had approached the dealership I was looking to buy a car, yet somehow this has now turned out to be a rental. Had I known the condition of the car I would not 

have purchased it. 

I am really upset about this as I had made the dealership aware of my fault finding in the car a mere 3 weeks after purchasing it.

----------


## Justloadit

I suggest you get a lawyer involved to show that you are serious, especially since the repairs was not sanctioned by Audi, it means that any warranties on the vehicle will be forfeited.

----------


## Blurock

Good advice by Justloadit. The potential future problems could cost you more than R16k, but don't forget the added legal cost as well. :Frown:

----------


## Protege2

So at the end of the day I would have to part with R16k 😞

----------


## Dave A

:Hmmm:  At the very least, I question the relevance of using SARS's fixed cost in this calculation at all. The depreciated value arising from mileage/time is only one component in the SARS figure. Others include insurance and licences costs.

The depreciation component (at SARS's straight line rate) is R169 500 * 20% (annual depr. allowance) *3/12 (3months)
which comes to a mere R8 497.50

Seeing as the issue is misrepresentation - Why not just press for a replacement vehicle that matches what was represented?

----------


## sterne.law@gmail.com

Why don't you throw the 6 months in which to return the car under the CPA [because there is a fault!] alternatively they take the car back give you a new/equivalent and you don't sue for damages, nice and friendly like!!

----------

Justloadit (20-Jan-12)

----------


## Justloadit

> Why don't you throw the 6 months in which to return the car under the CPA [because there is a fault!] alternatively they take the car back give you a new/equivalent and you don't sue for damages, nice and friendly like!!


I like this approach, and will be far cheaper, it may be they have a better vehicle in the show room right now.

----------


## Dave A

This faulty new motorcycle thread is pretty closely related. And there is something that is niggling in my mind with both of them.

First, we've got the complication of asset finance - and banks are awfully good about covering their own asses in these things. Somebody's going to lose money on the finance cancellation if it comes to that, and I'm pretty sure it won't be the bank.

Second, the motor industry has set up its own organisation to handle CPA disputes. I have a sneaky suspicion they'll be trying to get the dealer out of this a lot easier than a generic CPA process would have done. (I trust we can still appeal to higher authorities if that's the case  :Stick Out Tongue:  )

Third, we sign an awful lot of paperwork when we buy these things - and I vaguely recall there being some "in the event of..." CPA related clauses in the last lot I signed that kinda steered resolutions in a particular direction. I didn't pay much mind to it as our turnover precludes us (the company) from CPA protection, but I vaguely recall that "we elected to allow the supplier to repair as our first preference in the event of being supplied faulty goods", or something along those lines.

Just not sure whether it was in with the finance agreement or the supplier documentation.

----------


## sterne.law@gmail.com

Such a clause can be challenged in terms of CPA - unfair term.
Motor industry doe snot preclude CPA, yet. They need to apply.

Banks often a spoke but they can be an ally particularly as client still wants/needs a car. Strictly speaking it is the banks car and they may take some interest in bringing some pressure.

----------


## Protege2

Dave A that sounds a lot better than 16k, i also have a sneaky feeling that these guys help keep the dealerships out of trouble and they get a cut from it!

----------


## wynn

> This faulty new motorcycle thread is pretty closely related. And there is something that is niggling in my mind with both of them.
> 
> First, we've got the complication of asset finance - and banks are awfully good about covering their own asses in these things. Somebody's going to lose money on the finance cancellation if it comes to that, and I'm pretty sure it won't be the bank.
> 
> Second, the motor industry has set up its own organisation to handle CPA disputes. I have a sneaky suspicion they'll be trying to get the dealer out of this a lot easier than a generic CPA process would have done. (I trust we can still appeal to higher authorities if that's the case  )
> 
> Third, we sign an awful lot of paperwork when we buy these things - and I vaguely recall there being some "in the event of..." CPA related clauses in the last lot I signed that kinda steered resolutions in a particular direction. I didn't pay much mind to it as our turnover precludes us (the company) from CPA protection, but I vaguely recall that "we elected to allow the supplier to repair as our first preference in the event of being supplied faulty goods", or something along those lines.
> 
> Just not sure whether it was in with the finance agreement or the supplier documentation.


Dave isn't it time we instigated an SMS and email storm on suppliers like these two? You know like happened on BW a few years back. Provided the details are correct and the supplier is trying to pull a fast one.

You PM or call the the complaining member check if all is 'Kosher' and then as the administrator give us the cell numbers and email addresses of the manager of the offending dealer and leave the rest to us. We members only respond to numbers and email addresses posted by Admin.

Imagine a manager or business owner getting hundreds maybe thousands of SMS's and emails telling them that we are aware of the shitty service they are giving Mr XXX one of our members and we will never deal with them and will reccomend none of our aquaintances deal with them either unless they sort out the problem to the satisfaction of Mr XXX


The power of the 99% :Rant1:  :Devil2:

----------


## Blurock

> Dave A that sounds a lot better than 16k, i also have a sneaky feeling that these guys help keep the dealerships out of trouble and they get a cut from it!


It troubles me that even if a lawyer can Bul$!# a magistrate with some technical point, it is still regarded as a fair trial. This is regardless if the complainant has a justified case and the defendant is a rogue with a previous record. It often happens where a corporate institution can afford legal counsel and the small guy can not. 

Does this mean that Justice is a prostitute? If you can afford her you're OK, but if you can not.... :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## Dave A

> It troubles me that even if a lawyer can Bul$!# a magistrate with some technical point, it is still regarded as a fair trial.


The magistrate has to consider the evidence and arguments presented. Can you blame the magistrate if one or other party fails to present some aspect of their case?

----------


## sterne.law@gmail.com

> The magistrate has to consider the evidence and arguments presented. Can you blame the magistrate if one or other party fails to present some aspect of their case?


Indeed. The side that prepares best and presents best wins! Of course, money and resources often dictate who gets the better shot an this is why it appears that the "victim" loses because of a biased magistrate.
Unfortunately, the truth does not always win and justice does not prevail because of the disparity in power.

----------

