A new trend has emerged where companies are using a marketing tactic in which goods are promoted and offered to be sold to consumers telephonically. The only problem is that the consumer is misrepresented and all the facts of the sale are not disclosed. At first, delivery of the products are made to the consumer but soon, without any order or acceptance, the same delivery is made within more or less one month. It then follows that consumers are subsequently threatened by agencies attempting to collect payment and furthermore threatened to be blacklisted.
In terms of the Consumer Protection Act, a consumer cannot be forced to pay for unsolicited goods or for the cost of the delivery. The Consumer Protection Act in terms of section 21 covers a wide range of instances in which goods or services are deemed as unsolicited. Amongst other instances, section 21 stipulates that any goods delivered to, or any services performed for, a consumer by a supplier without the consumer having expressly or implicitly requested that delivery or performance is deemed to be unsolicited goods or services.
It should, however, be noted that goods are not seen as unsolicited in instances where the supplier informs the consumer within 10 business days of delivery that the goods were delivered in error or if they are clearly addressed to another person and therefore delivered at the wrong premises. The supplier should be given the opportunity to collect these goods within 20 business days, without any frustration caused by the consumer. Should it be that the consumer impedes or frustrates the collection, the consumer will be liable for any additional costs of recovery, or damage to, the goods that result.
Consumers should be extremely cautious before entering into agreements telephonically, in order to avoid falling victim to this method of unethical bad practice.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
The author of this article is Damian Bothma, a legal advisor at SEESA’S Consumer and POPI department.