Ongevraagde goedere ingevolge die Wet op Verbruikersbeskerming in regsvergelykende perspektief

Abstract

Verbruikersbeskerming is nie ’n nuwe konsep in die Suid-Afrikaanse reg nie. Otto verklaar tereg dat verbruikersbeskerming reeds in die Romeinse tydperk bestaan het. Die skrywer gee die voorbeeld van die aediles curules wat die Romeinse edikte (waaronder die actio quanti minoris en die actio redhibitoria oftewel die aedilisiese aksies tel) uitgevaardig het. Voorbeelde van statutêre verbruikersbeskerming voor die inwerkingtreding van die Wet op Verbruikersbeskerming 68 van 2008 sluit in die Wet op Vervreemding van Grond, die Wet op Elektroniese Kommunikasies en Transaksies en die Nasionale Kredietwet. Die Wet op Verbruikersbeskerming is egter ’n poging van die wetgewer om wydverstrooide verbruikersbeskermingswetgewing onder een oorkoepelende wet saam te voeg en te reguleer. Dit is die eerste keer in die geskiedenis van Suid-Afrika dat agt fundamentele verbruikersregte aan verbruikers toegeken word.

Though consumer protection is not a new concept in South African law, the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 is an attempt by the legislature to merge and regulate various widely-scattered consumer protection legislation under one act. It is the first time in the history of South African law that a consumer is provided with eight basic fundamental consumer rights. Part C of chapter 2 of the act regulates the consumer’s fundamental right to choose. Part of this right includes section 21 and the protection of consumers in respect of unsolicited goods. The inclusion of unsolicited goods as part of the act aims to bring the South African position more in line with the international position regarding inertia selling. Problems arise in the practical application of section 21 in the unique South African landscape. There are clear similarities between the wording of section 21 and other similar provisions that regulate unsolicited goods in European countries (also member states of the European Union). Because of South Africa’s legal and historical background, the positions in Scotland, Belgium and Germany are discussed comparatively. Statutory regulation of unsolicited goods in these countries has as its origin the implementation of European Directives in the relevant member state, but the manner of implementation in the national law of each country differs. A further purpose of the comparative analysis is to find solutions to questions that arise from the critical analysis and explanation of section 21 and the South African position. The issue regarding the broad definition given to unsolicited goods in terms of section 21 to also include situations where an existing contractual relationship is present between the supplier and consumer is discussed as well as possible problems regarding the time constraints for the recovery of the goods by the supplier and retention of the goods by the consumer. The issue regarding possible transfer of ownership in the unsolicited goods in terms of section 21(6) is also examined. Although section 21 regulates both unsolicited goods and services the focus of this discussion is on the former (goods). The contribution concludes with recommendations and concluding remarks taking into account the comparative analysis.