scholarly journals The Impact of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 Repo 'Safe Harbor' Provisions on Investors

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin Chircop ◽  
Michele Fabrizi ◽  
Antonio Parbonetti
Keyword(s):  
Consumer Protection ◽  
Abuse Prevention ◽  
Safe Harbor ◽  
Consumer Protection Act ◽  
The Impact

scholarly journals THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT AND THE INNKEEPER’S LIABILITY FOR THE PROPERTY OF THE GUEST

Obiter ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Tait
Keyword(s):  
Consumer Protection ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
Consumer Contract ◽  
Media Report ◽  
Advance Reservations ◽  
Consumer Protection Act ◽  
Bed And Breakfast ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship

Literally thousands of consumer agreements are concluded every day between innkeepers and their guests. For present purposes an innkeeper is understood to be a supplier of accommodation services and, in turn, implies the proprietor of an accommodation establishment, such as a hotel, lodge and bed and breakfast establishment. It is unfortunately not uncommon that property of some consumers of accommodation services are damaged or lost through theft or other causes whilst making use of these services. As an example may serve a media report where the Daily Dispatch reported on an incident stemming from an alleged theft by employees of the Kariega Game Reserve from guests at the Reserve. This perennial problem raises the issue as to the liability of the supplier for loss of or damage to the property of the consumer whilst the latter is making use of the accommodation services of the supplier. In the praetorian edict de nautius, cauponibus et stabulariis the common law provides a specific solution as to the liability of the supplier. The edict, which is a consequence of the contract for accommodation services between the supplier and the consumer of those services, imposes strict liability on the supplier for loss of, or damage to, the property of the consumer. This protection, however, is largely negated by the general practice of expressly excluding the liability imposed by the edict in the consumer agreement between the parties.The introduction of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (CPA) saw a number of specific provisions impacting the relationship between consumer and supplier of accommodation services – such as provisions pertaining to equality (s 8 and 9); privacy (s 11 and 12); cancellation of advance reservations (s 17); and customer loyalty programmes (s 35), to name but a few.The CPA also has implications for the supplier of accommodation services when it comes to the supplier’s liability for the loss of, or damage to, the property of the consumer. This note focuses on two particular aspects. The first considers briefly the impact of the Act on clauses excluding the liability of the supplier for loss or damage to the consumer’s property. Provisions of the CPA regulating the use of clauses excluding liability may therefore have relevance for the praetorian edict, as the protection provided by the edict is excluded as a standard practice, as stated. The edict, because of the impact of the CPA, therefore may resume its relevance of earlier years.The second aspect pertains specifically to section 65(2) of the CPA. This provision imposes a duty on suppliers in general to account for the property of the consumer when such property is in possession of the supplier. As a matter of course guests bring property into the accommodation establishment of the innkeeper with which the consumer has contracted. If such property is lost or damaged (through no fault of the consumer) the question arises whether section 65(2) can find application. If it does, it can have significant consequences for both suppliers and consumers, but if not, then an understanding of the impact of the CPA on the use of clauses in a consumer contract excluding liability becomes even more important.

scholarly journals EXEMPTION PROVISIONS AND THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2008: SOME PRELIMINARY COMMENTS

Obiter ◽  
2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Tait ◽  
Stephen Newman
Keyword(s):  
Consumer Protection ◽  
Standard Form ◽  
Tourism Industry ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Shopping Malls ◽  
Tourist Attractions ◽  
Consumer Law ◽  
Consumer Protection Act ◽  
Parking Garages ◽  
The Impact

Suppliers have found it most convenient to reduce their risk of liability by inserting a provision in their contracts with consumers – be it in a written and signed contract or in the form of a displayed notice – in terms of which suppliers are exempted from liabilities they would otherwise be obliged to accept. Exemption of liability provisions are often contained in standard-form contracts but also in notices displayed at public venues such as hotels, restaurants, shopping malls, parking garages, entertainment complexes, tourist attractions and even petrol-service stations. The same may probably be said of a host of other suppliers, including suppliers of tourism services. It is not surprising, therefore, that a significant factor in the development of consumer law in general can be “ascribed to legislative responses to business disclaimers of accountability for negative consequences attendant upon their dealings with consumers”.The Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (CPA) introduced a number of provisions which impact on the use by suppliers of provisions that aim to exclude the liability of suppliers for harm to consumers caused through the negligence of the supplier. The CPA defines a supplier in section 1 as: “a person who markets any goods or services”. To market is defined as: “to promote or supply any goods or services”.This note seeks to provide a conceptual framework for the understanding and application of relevant provisions of the CPA to exemption provisions. The impact is considered within the context of the tourism industry in order to illustrate some of the practical consequences of the CPA on the use of exemption provisions. The note does not seek to question whether exemption provisions are contrary to public policy per se.

scholarly journals La garantie conventionnelle relative à l'automobile neuve et d'occasion : quelques aspects en droit de la consommation

2005 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 807-821
Author(s):  
Nicole L’Heureux
Keyword(s):  
Consumer Protection ◽  
Consumer Protection Act ◽  
The Impact

The sale of motor véhicules is generally subject to a conventional warranty. Many sections of the Consumer Protection Act cover such warranties. This paper focus on the impact of the principal dispositions of the Act affecting conventional warranties in the sale of new or used automobiles and the main problems which arise therefrom.

scholarly journals Judicial Guidance on the Application of Section 49 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2008 – Van Wyk t/a Skydive Mossel Bay v UPS SCS South Africa (Pty) Ltd [2020] 1 All SA 857 (WCC)

Obiter ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 948-960
Author(s):  
Mark Tait
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Consumer Protection ◽  
Western Cape ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
High Court ◽  
Consumer Protection Act ◽  
Consumer Contracts ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
The Impact

In South Africa, the legislature’s response to the negative consequences resulting from the pervasive use of disclaimers by suppliers has been to regulate the use of these terms through the enactment of a number of provisions in the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (CPA), including sections 48, 49 and 51. A number of publications have considered the meaning of these provisions and the impact they may have on the use of disclaimers in consumer contracts. As a consequence of the widespread use of disclaimers and the adverse consequences they may hold for consumers, any judicial pronouncement on the impact of the CPA on these clauses is significant. In Van Wyk t/a Skydive Mossel Bay v UPS SCS South Africa ([2020] 1 All SA 857 (WCC) (Skydive v UPS)), the Western Cape High Court was afforded the opportunity to consider the impact of aspects of section 49 specifically on the use of a clause in a consumer agreement excluding the risk or liability of suppliers (referred to as an “exemption clause” in this note).Section 49 of the CPA applies to four distinct types of clause enumerated in section 49(1) – namely, clauses limiting the risk or liability of suppliers in respect of any other person; clauses constituting an assumption of risk or liability by the consumer; clauses imposing an obligation on the consumer to indemnify the supplier for any cause; and clauses requiring a consumer to acknowledge a particular fact. As indicated, in Skydive v UPS, the contentious clause was one excluding the risk or liability of the supplier. The focus of this note then is on the interpretation and application by the court in Skydive v UPS of the relevant provisions of section 49 of the CPA to an exemption clause.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document