If a purchaser is willing to buy a motor vehicle as a “non-runner”, despite the fact that it can be driven and indeed tested, the consumer accepts that he or she can expect no more of the vehicle than would be the case if it was not running at all.
On the face of it, such a purchase would be unwise, but the purchaser’s judgment on that issue would depend on the price being asked, and perhaps also the consumer’s belief as to his or her capacity to deal with the problem if something went wrong.
These were the words of a Pietermaritzburg High Court Judge, who found that while the Consumer Protection Act does provide that every consumer has the right to receive goods which are of good quality and they may return it within six months if this was not the case, there is an exception.
Judge Peter Olsen said there is a section in the Act which provides that if the consumer has been expressly informed that the goods were being offered in a certain condition, and the consumer accepted this, the consumer is not protected under the Act.
His comments followed an appeal by a Pinetown car dealership - MMA Dealership - after the magistrates’ court ordered it to pay R23,750 for the repairs of a vehicle which broke down about 40 kilometres away as the new owner, Winston Fayers, drove it home.
The lower courts’ order was made after Fayers turned to court to be reimbursed for fixing the vehicle. He relied on the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act for his claim which permits the consumer to return goods to a supplier within six months after delivery if the goods fail to satisfy the requirements and standards contemplated in the Act.
Fayers earlier responded to an advertisement on the internet offering a Jeep Grand Cherokee vehicle for sale. Liking what he saw, he bought the vehicle in cash. While he lived in Durban, he worked in Secunda and planned to drive it back to Secunda.
According to him, when he got to Hammersdale, the car stopped and he was unable to restart it. According to the salesman, the vehicle was sold “as is” as the dealership had bought it at an auction without warranties, and had not yet had an opportunity to put it through a roadworthiness test.
If the plaintiff wanted to take the vehicle there and then, he would have to attend to the certificate of roadworthiness himself, the dealership said. The front page of the contract between them clearly stipulated “sold as a non-runner car" and sold “as is”. Fayers had obtained a quote for R23,750 from a mechanic to repair the vehicle, but he did not accept this and in the end, his brother repaired it.
Fayers also told the court that when he had signed the contract, he never saw the “as is” clause. He said he believed the vehicle to be in working order. According to Fayers, he test drove the vehicle before he bought it and it ran perfectly. He questioned why he would buy a “non-runner".
But the court found that he bought the vehicle at a low price and he knew what it would mean to buy a car as a “non-runner”, as this was clear on the contract, even though it was capable of being driven and tested. The court subsequently upheld the appeal.