Consumer Protection Act

The Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 was signed into law on 29 April 2009 by the State President and comes into effect in stages, with the first part having come into effect on the early effective date on 24 April 2010 including the basic franchise agreement requirements of Section 7 and the so called "no fault" liability provisions of Section 61. The remainder of the Act is now scheduled to come into effect on the general effective date which was postponed by notice published on 23 September 2010 to 31 March 2011.

Off-course it is still possible that someone will challenge sections of the Act in the Constitutional Court which could delay the coming into effect of those sections. Click here to read a copy of the act. Click here to read a copy of the regulations.

Section 7, which as mentioned above came into effect on 24 April 2010, provides for Franchise Agreements to be in writing, signed on behalf of the franchisee, include any prescribed information, or address any prescribed categories of information (none at the moment) and be in plain and understandable language. Further, a franchisee may cancel a franchise agreement without cost or penalty within 10 business days after signing such agreement, by giving written notice to the franchisor.

Of more interest to the ordinary consumer, is the "no fault" liability provision in Section 61 which provides that regardless of whether they are negligent or not, a producer, importer, distributor, retailer, or installer are jointly and severally liable for any harm, injury or damage caused wholly or partly as a consequence of
(a) supplying any unsafe goods;
(b) a product failure, defect or hazard in any goods; or
(c) inadequate instructions or warnings provided to the consumer pertaining to any hazard arising from or associated with the use of any goods.

What the above means, in plain language, is that where a consumer is injured or harmed in any way, or any property of a consumer is damaged by or due to goods, if the consumer can prove that the goods actually caused the harm or damage, the consumer would be able to claim damages including any economic loss suffered, such as loss of earnings, present and future medical costs, and the like, in addition to the value of the product. This is a huge improvement in the protection of consumers as in the past, before the Consumer Protection Act came into effect, the consumer would have also had to prove that the retailer was negligent (did not act reasonably) which is almost impossible to do for most consumers. Furthermore, the consumer can now claim damages from anyone, or the entire supply chain, so that the retailer cannot blame the manufacturer, who then blames the distributor and the consumer cannot identify who is responsible for their harm or damage, as someone in the supply chain will be responsible although it may not be the retailer if the problem arose as a result of poor workmanship, however, the consumer will not need to figure this out, the retailer and the manufacturer will each have to prove why they are not the responsible ones and one of them would be responsible. Click here to read an article on the 'Impact of the Consumer Protection Act on the food industry'

A detailed analysis of the Consumer Protection Act as it effects the Snack Foods industry, but which is applicable to a greater or lesser extent to all food industries, is provided here for general information only and should not be taken as legal advice and there is no substitute for professional legal advice from an attorney specialising in this new but complex field. It is off-course even better of your attorney is an engineer or scientist too, as we are. click here to read more....