A second-hand car dealer cannot bypass the consumer protection laws through disclaimer clauses or partial repairs, the National Consumer Tribunal (NCT) has ruled. The decision reinforces the strength of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), even when the National Consumer Commission (NCC) initially declined to intervene.
In October last year, the Tribunal found that Rifle Range Car Sales had contravened sections 56(2) and 56(3) of the CPA in its sale of a 2012 Mahindra XUV500 to Jacobus Johannes Holl. The dealer was ordered to refund Holl the full purchase price of R207 059.43 within five days and to collect the vehicle at its own risk and expense.
Holl purchased the vehicle in May 2023 after being told the clutch needed repairs and receiving repeated assurances that the car was in good condition. On the drive home to Nelspruit, he noticed multiple faults, including warning lights, malfunctioning systems, and mechanical issues. A Volvo inspection found further defects, including a non-functioning all-wheel-drive system, oil leaks, drivetrain problems, faulty cruise control, and a defective computer box.
Rifle Range Car Sales addressed only some issues and later halted repairs.
Holl approached the Motor Industry Ombudsman, which recommended the dealer collect the vehicle and fix it at no cost. When this recommendation was ignored, Holl turned to the NCC.
The NCC issued a notice of non-referral in December 2024, concluding that the complaint did not fall within its jurisdiction because the six-month implied warranty under the CPA had expired. Holl then exercised his right under section 75(1)(b) of the CPA to take the matter to the Tribunal, which granted him leave in April 2025.
The Tribunal rejected the dealer’s arguments that the vehicle was sold voetstoots, that Holl had assumed the risks of buying an older, high-mileage vehicle, and that disclaimer clauses exempted the dealer from liability.
Why the Tribunal ruled against the dealer
Tribunal member Selwyn Hockey said the case turned on the CPA’s implied warranty and the limits of what a supplier can lawfully exclude through contract.
He stated: “The first respondent’s argument that Holl assumed the risk for any mechanical or other problems that might arise with the vehicle is disconcerting and completely disregards the applicant’s rights as a consumer in accordance with the provisions of the CPA […].
“The clauses in the purchase agreement, which aim to exempt the first respondent from liabilities for any failures of the vehicle, are in conflict with the implied warranty provided by Holl under section 56(1).
“Simply put, the first respondent, as a supplier, cannot bypass the provisions of the CPA through the terms of the purchase agreement, as they have attempted to do.”
Section 56(2) allows consumers, within six months of delivery, to return goods that fail to meet quality standards and to demand a repair, replacement, or refund. Section 56(3) extends this right if defects persist after attempted repairs. The Tribunal found that Rifle Range Car Sales had addressed only some defects, leaving serious issues unresolved.
Volvo’s inspection confirmed that the all-wheel-drive system did not work, the transfer case was leaking oil, the centre prop shaft had excessive play, and the computer box was defective. These were material defects, rendering the vehicle unsuitable for its ordinary purpose. By refusing to complete the repairs, the dealer breached sections 56(2) and 56(3).
The ruling emphasises that suppliers cannot contract out of the CPA, and partial repairs do not absolve them from liability. Consumers are entitled to goods that are of good quality, in working order, and reasonably durable – and if they are not, a repair, replacement, or refund is required.
Read the full ruling here.
This is an important ruling that reinforces the power of the CPA for everyday consumers. It’s a clear reminder that businesses can’t simply write themselves out of their legal obligations, no matter what a contract says. The precedent that “voetstoots” doesn’t apply to latent defects undisclosed due to a lack of proper inspection is particularly significant for used car buyers.
For consumers who find themselves in a similar situation with a major purchase, what is the most crucial first piece of evidence to gather when they suspect a latent defect? Is it an immediate independent expert inspection report, or is formally notifying the dealer of the issue in writing (creating a paper trail) the absolute priority?