Consumer protection afforded to juristic persons ito section 14 of the CPA

Abstract

The promulgation of Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (CPA) became the first consumer law extending protection to juristic persons in South Africa. This is by and large based on the fact that consumer laws acknowledge that everyone is a consumer and in need of protection. However, some transactions are not considered to be consumer contracts based on the monetary threshold. Further limitation is seen in section 14 which deals with the cancellation and renewal of fixed term agreements. Section 14 excludes juristic persons from its ambit regardless of their annual turnover or asset value. The study reveals that section 14 affords different treatment between natural and juristic persons who are consumers by excluding juristic persons from its protection even though the CPA regards juristic persons as consumers. In the study, it is illustrated that there is a definite need to protect juristic persons when cancelling and renewing the fixed term agreements because the common law does not provide adequate protection to them when cancelling the fixed term agreements. Juristic persons are not sufficiently protected in terms of the CPA and cannot rely on the CPA when cancelling or renewing fixed term agreements. Therefore, further investigation into the Australian consumer law is necessary as it seems to present the possible remedy on protection of juristic persons. The Australian definition of consumer has been described as positively generous in comparison to other jurisdictions, particularly South Africa. This conclusion is by and large based on the fact that the Australian definition of consumer allows for the protection of juristic persons when cancelling and renewing fixed term agreements whereas South Africa does not allow for this protection. The comparison is critical in assisting further developments of South African law, particularly in the area of consumer protection.