Elizabeth de Stadler

Since the enactment of the CPA, the question whether goods can still be sold ‘voetstoots’ or ‘as is’ has been a hotly debated topic. The short answer is that ‘voetstoots’ clauses as we know them are no longer acceptable in transactions where the CPA applies. This will cause difficulties for suppliers of second hand goods or low quality (but consequently cheap) goods.*

Why do I say it is not applicable?

When I was drafting this edition of the CLR, the Select Committee of the National Council of Provinces had just issued a report on 12 June 2013 in which the Protection of Personal Information Bill was accepted and tabled in the NCOP with some minor, mostly cosmetic, changes. Pam Saxby for Legalbrief Policy Watch explains what happens next:

I considered not writing about the meat labelling scandal as so much has been written about it already. But, given the NCC’s involvement and the recent notice which it published in terms of section 26 it is worthwhile to take a closer look at a supplier’s obligations in terms of the CPA. For purposes of this article I am going to assume, perhaps incorrectly, that this is not a food safety issue, but rather simply a case of misinformation.

This is part 3 in our series of articles on the Protection of Personal Information Bill (PoPI). If you are wondering whether it applies to your business, don’t. The definition of ‘processing’ and ‘personal information’ are so wide that the application of the Bill is virtually guaranteed (see September 2012 edition of Consumer Law Review). The Bill is structured around eight conditions for the lawful processing of information. These conditions are simply sets of obligations which are imposed on the responsible party (the supplier).