KEY POINTS
-
Buyer not protected under law after accepting “non-runner” vehicle condition.
-
Court ruled that the vehicle’s condition was clearly stated in the sales contract.
-
Judge affirmed that the Consumer Protection Act includes exceptions when conditions are made explicit.
Consumers cannot expect full legal protection when knowingly buying a vehicle sold as a “non-runner.”
A Pietermaritzburg High Court judge stated these facts while ruling on a dispute involving a broken-down vehicle.
The case involved an MMA dealership and a buyer, Winston Fayers, who purchased a Jeep Grand Cherokee.
Judge Peter Olsen ruled that although the Consumer Protection Act offers consumer rights, it also includes exceptions. The Act allows goods to be returned within six months if they do not meet acceptable standards.
However, it also specifies that this protection does not apply to buyers who accept goods in a specific condition. Olsen said the buyer’s rights do not apply if the condition was made clear before the purchase.
Buyer claimed the vehicle broke down after leaving dealership
According to IOL, Fayers responded to an online advertisement and paid in cash for the Jeep Grand Cherokee. He purchased the vehicle in Durban and planned to drive it to his workplace in Secunda.
Fayers testified that the car broke down around Hammersdale, approximately 40 kilometres from the dealership. He claimed he could not restart the car and had to tow it for repairs.
The dealership said it sold the vehicle “as is” and as a “non-runner” bought at auction. The dealership had not conducted a roadworthiness test and said Fayers accepted this condition. They noted the contract clearly stated that the car was a “non-runner.”
Court affirms consumer accepted non-runner vehicle condition
Fayers claimed he had not seen the “as is” clause before signing the contract. He also said he test-drove the car and believed it to be in good condition.
Fayers questioned why he would purchase a “non-runner” if the car functioned during the test. He submitted a repair quote of R23,750 but said his brother eventually repaired the vehicle.
The magistrates’ court initially ruled in Fayers’ favor, ordering the dealership to pay the repair costs.
However, the dealership appealed the ruling, arguing that the vehicle’s condition was clear in the agreement.
Judge Olsen discovered that the contract’s front page explicitly stated the car’s “non-runner” status. He concluded that the buyer accepted the risks and purchased the car at a low price.
The high court overturned the lower court’s ruling and upheld the dealership’s appeal.
