Affordable Legal Advice and Paralegal Services in South Africa Contact Us

i phone defects

It is irrelevant whether a product failure or defect was latent (hidden) or patent (visible), before taking delivery of the item.

If you’ve bought a defective product, it is comforting to know that, in terms of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), you as the consumer, are not without remedy. But to investigate your options, you must understand what the CPA provides for and what your legal rights are.

 Consumer Protection Act No 68 of 2008 (CPA).

 Take the following case study as an example.

Pieter recently bought an electrical appliance from a retail store. The floor salesperson told him that the product would be compatible with his new iPhone. Excited, Pieter went home; but only to find that the appliance was not compatible with his iPhone. Reluctant to make a scene and still able to partially use the appliance, Pieter continued using the item, only to find a few weeks later that the appliance had completely “died” on him and would no longer switch back on. Infuriated at both the salesperson who had convinced him to buy the product and the retailer for selling a product that broke so quickly, Pieter went back to the retail store to return the product.

At the store, Pieter was directed to the exchange counter. After explaining the situation to the assistant, Pieter was shown the exchange notice board stating that the store’s return policy is that defective products must be returned within fourteen days of date of purchase for an exchange or refund and since his till slip shows the item having been bought twenty-two days ago, the store cannot refund him his purchase price or replace the item and that he should rather directly contact the producer to find out about a refund or replacement. Additionally, the assistant informs Pieter that it was his responsibility to verify the compatibility of the product with his iPhone beforehand and that the store also cannot be liable for the lack of compatibility.

Many consumers find themselves in situations like that of Pieter. So now the question is:

What the CPA provides for when it comes to defective products and the appropriateness of the product for the use for which it was bought.

The CPA defines that a “defect” as “any material imperfection in the manufacture of the goods or components, that renders the goods less acceptable than persons generally would be reasonably entitled to expect in the circumstances, or any characteristic of the goods or components that renders the goods or components less useful, practical or safe than persons generally would be reasonably entitled to expect in the circumstances.”

The CPA further states that every consumer has the right to receive goods that:

  • are reasonably suitable for the purposes for which they are generally intended;
  • are of good quality, in good working order and free of any defects (however, one should bear in mind that where a consumer is specifically informed that goods are offered in a certain condition and accepts the goods in that condition, the consumer cannot after the fact, claim that the goods were defective. In Pieter’s case, however, he would be able to claim that the goods were defective irrespective of whether he could have established their defect at the date of purchase);
  • will be useable and durable for a reasonable period of time, with regards to the use to which they would normally be put;  and
  • comply with any applicable standards as set out under the Standards Act or any other public regulation.

In determining whether goods have satisfied the requirements of safe, good quality goods, one has to consider all of the circumstances relating to the supply of those goods, which, include the following:

  • the manner in which, and the purpose for which, the goods were marketed, packaged and displayed; the use of any trade description or mark; any instructions for, or warnings with respect to the use of the goods;
  • the range of things that might reasonably be anticipated to be done with or in relation to the goods; and
  • the time when the goods were produced and supplied.

Accordingly, it is irrelevant whether a product failure or defect was latent (hidden) or patent (visible), or whether it could have been detected by a consumer before taking delivery of the item.

Regarding the claim of the assistant that the iPhone compatibility issue was not the store’s problem, the CPA provides answers by providing that if a consumer has specifically informed the store of the particular purpose for which he wishes to acquire the goods and the store (through its sale staff) acts in a manner consistent with knowing about the use of those goods, the consumer has a right to expect that the goods are reasonably suitable for the specific purpose that he has indicated to the sales staff. As the store salesperson assured Pieter that he was knowledgeable and that the product was compatible with his iPhone, the store can be held responsible for compatibility issues related to the product.

Lastly, the question remains whether the exchange counter disclaimer prohibiting exchanges or refunds after fourteen days would protect the store against refunding or exchanging Pieter’s defective product.

Here the CPA again comes to the rescue by determining that in any transaction for the supply of goods (such as Pieter’s sale transaction) there is an implied warranty that the goods will meet the standards as set out above, provided the consumer has not altered or tampered with or used the goods contrary to the instructions. Where goods do not meet these standards, the consumer may return the goods to the store, without any penalty, within six months of delivery of the goods, and the store must repair or replace the defective goods, or refund the consumer for the full price paid for the goods.

The store will thus not be able to use their fourteen day period to avoid responsibility to exchange or refund Pieter for the product purchased and Pieter can request his money back or exchange the product for a working item.

It is good to know that the CPA protects the consumer against the overzealous salesperson promising the world, and the store trying to pass the responsibility for defective products back to the consumer.

Please visit our website at www.legaladviceoffice.co.za or send us an email to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. and we will respond to your legal queries within 48 hours.

About our author:

Hugh Pollard (Legal Consultant), has a BA LLB and 42 years’ experience in the legal field. 22 years as a practicing attorney and conveyancer; and 20 years as a Legal Consultant.

082-0932304 (Hugh’s Cell Number)

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Subscribe to our Legal Advice Blog

Follow our weekly Blogs:
To Subscribe to our Legal Advice blog is simple and easy. Just type your email address at the bottom and click GO

News Feed

Legal Advice Office

South Africa

Kandelaar Street, Vermont, Hermanus
Phone: +27 (028) 316 2458
Email: info@legaladviceoffice.co.za