The case centred around a second-hand vehicle sold to the applicant and falsely described as “accident-free” with a “full-service record.” Upon discovering that the vehicle had extensive latent defects and had been involved in a prior collision, the purchaser sought to cancel the sale and reclaim his payment on the grounds of misrepresentation.
In making its finding, the Court considered the difference between a latent defect and a misrepresentation on the part of the seller. The Court clarified that a latent defect is a hidden flaw not easily observable during an inspection, and which impairs the utility of the item for its intended purpose.
A seller is typically shielded from liability under a ‘voetstoots’ clause unless they knew of the defect and deliberately withheld the information or acted fraudulently. A misrepresentation, on the other hand, is when a seller falsely represents that goods are free of defects or intentionally conceals critical flaws to get the buyer to make the purchase. In such an event, the buyer may be able to rely on this misrepresentation to cancel the sale.
The Court accordingly found in favour of the purchaser, noting that the representation that the vehicle was accident-free was material, false, and intended to induce the purchaser and that the seller had knowingly misrepresented the condition of the vehicle. The Court ordered that the purchaser was entitled to cancel the oral contract of sale and claim restitution based upon the misrepresentation.
The takeaway from this case is that a ‘voetstoots’ clause cannot be used as a shield for fraudulent behaviour and that honesty is critical when selling goods, particularly as concealing known defects or providing false information not only undermines the trust in commerce but can expose you to legal consequences.
Disclaimer: This article is the personal opinion/view of the author(s) and is not necessarily that of the firm. The content is provided for information only and should not be seen as an exact or complete exposition of the law. Accordingly, no reliance should be placed on the content for any reason whatsoever and no action should be taken on the basis thereof unless its application and accuracy have been confirmed by a legal advisor. The firm and author(s) cannot be held liable for any prejudice or damage resulting from action taken on the basis of this content without further written confirmation by the author(s).
Culture vs style: When workplace dress codes cross the line
Dress codes are a familiar part of many workplaces, yet employers often fail to calibrate how far they are allowed to go in regulating employee personal appearance. While employers may enforce standards of neatness, safety and professionalism, these rules cannot override constitutional rights, nor can they operate in a discriminatory manner. A recent reminder of this emerged from the Supreme Court of Appeal, where the court had to consider the fairness of dismissing correctional officers for refusing to cut their dreadlocks, contrary to the employer’s dress code.
