If you struggle to read this article or do not see the images, click here.

 

 

| in short |

| protecting consumer credit - a strict approach |

 

The National Credit Act, 34 of 2005, (hereinafter “the Act”) has frequently been deemed rather precarious, however it seems that our Courts are now adopting a strict interpretation of the Act, thereby affording consumers even greater protection than that of credit providers.

 

The very recent case of Absa Bank Ltd v Prochaska t/a Bianca Cara Interiors, shows exactly how this plays out.

 

>>> Read further (full article)

 

 

As ‘n volwassene val, is dit gewoonlik net so pynlik as wat dit vernederend is – en nooit meer so as wat ‘n mens in die openbaar, soos in ‘n stampvol supermark, op iets gly en val nie.

 

Die Hoogste Hof van Appèl het onlangs uitsluitsel gegee oor die aanspreeklikheid van winkeleienaars teenoor hulle klante toe dit die uitspraak in die Pietermaritzburgse saak van Lindsay v Checkers Supermarket bevestig het.

 

>>> Lees verder (volledige artikel)

 

 

The president recently signed the new Consumer Protection Act into law (24 April 2009 to be exact). This kicked off a 12-month period during which the act will be implemented. The following is a brief outline of the aims and purposes of the Act as well as some sections that shall change the way on how businesses interact with consumers in the near future.

 

The aim of the Act is to achieve a consumer market that is fair, accessible, efficient, sustainable, and responsible for the benefit of Consumers generally; to create certain actions for consumers for various types of damages based on the turnover of any supplier; to provide consumer education and improved access to information in order for consumers to make fair choices; and to codify all the statutory and common law provisions that provided protection for purchasers of goods.

 

>>> Read further (full article)

 

 

| nowheresville |

| mozart's questionable protectible interest |

 

The recent case of Mozart Ice Cream Franchises (Pty) Ltd v Davidoff and another dealt with a questionable restraint of trade clause. The facts are as follows.

 

The Applicant (Mozart’s Ice Cream) and the respondent were parties to a franchise agreement. The agreement contained the standard restraint of trade clause, a franchisee was not entitled to be involved in any capacity (shareholder, principal, agent, sole proprietor, partner, director, member, trustee, beneficiary, employee, consultant, advisor or financier) of a business similar to (or which competes with or endeavours to compete with) the franchise business for a period of 24 months. The respondent opened its ice cream franchise in Tableview and traded and everything proceeded rather pleasantly.

 

>>> Read further (full article)

 

 

| swindon property minute |

| poor building/property management in cpt |

 

Swindon has recently launched a property management side to the business due to the increasing need and requests shown in the market for professional, competent & skilled management. Since taking over the management of a few CBD buildings earlier this month they have discovered enormous oversights by previous management agents.

 

Poor management found included no allocation of rental to tenants for common area space in the building (eg lift foyers, kitchens, toilets etc). These areas can account for an average of 15% to 22% of the building income and has a huge net income effect for the owners.

 

 

| rollonfriday |

| an unorthodox explanation for jury service excuse |

 

After receiving a jury notice earlier in the year, Erik Slye of Montana had a slightly unorthodox explanation for why he should be excused service (click on image for a larger popup version):

 

 

After being summoned to court Slye apologised for the affidavit and avoided being jailed. He was also excused from jury service.

 

(This section is made possible courtesy of RollOnFriday.com, visit them at www.rollonfriday.com)

 

 

| admin stuff |

|as boring as the small print |

If you have any questions, comments, want to know some more on any of these topics or want to suggest a topic for discussion, please drop us a shout at info@dwp.co.za.

 

This would also be convenient opportunity to tell us if you do not want to receive a copy of this newsletter in future (just to comply with the provisions of the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act, you know how we lawyers are...).  To unsubscribe, send an email to unsubscribe@dwp.co.za

 

If you don't see the images at the top of this newsletter, please add us as a "Safe Sender" in Outlook by right clicking on the images. All future newsletters will then show correctly on your computer.

 

We reserve our rights to the contents of this newsletter. If you want to use some of the contents then give us a call to arrange it beforehand.

 

Disclaimer: None of the information in this newsletter should be taken as professional advice. Unfortunately human error does sometimes creep in and the printers devil also does not always keep away from the door. We can therefore not accept any responsibility for any of the content of this newsletter without you coming to see us first so that we can take proper instructions from you about your circumstances and apply the necessary legal points to your problem.