When a supplier sells goods to a consumer, the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (the CPA) does most of the talking, whatever the contract may say. A recent High Court decision in the Edan Traders matter is a useful reminder of just how far those statutory protections reach, and how little room a supplier has to contract out of them.

The statutory baseline

Section 55(2) of the CPA applies to virtually every sale of goods to a consumer. It gives consumers the right to receive goods that are reasonably suitable for the purpose for which they are generally intended, of good quality, in good working order and free of defects. That right falls away only where the consumer has been expressly told of the specific condition of the goods and has agreed to acquire them on that basis.

Crucially, the Court confirmed that these protections apply with equal force to second-hand goods. Labelling an item as “used”, or selling it voetstoots, does not release the supplier from its obligations under section 55(2). The condition of the goods must be disclosed in clear and specific terms, a generic description or a standard disclaimer is not enough.

What the Court found

The judgment turns on a familiar but important principle: what a supplier says and what it leaves unsaid is decisive.

The High Court held that presenting goods as reliable or fit for purpose, while withholding known defects or material risks, can amount to misleading conduct, and in some cases unconscionable conduct, under the CPA. Misrepresentation is not confined to outright falsehoods. It can arise just as easily from silence, from an omission, or from creating an overall impression of a product that does not match reality. For suppliers, the message is that disclosure must be careful and accurate at every stage of marketing and negotiation, particularly where the consumer is relying on the supplier’s experience or advice.

The Court was equally firm on the limits of contractual drafting. A supplier cannot rely on the terms of a sale agreement to the extent that those terms conflict with the CPA. Any attempt to cut down a consumer’s statutory rights, whether through reduced warranties, disclaimers or standard-form voetstoots clauses, is unenforceable where it falls below the minimum protections the Act guarantees. Carefully worded contracts simply cannot be used to dilute consumer rights.

Lessons from the judgment

Beyond its findings on disclosure, the decision offers valuable guidance on how the CPA is enforced.

Consumer complaints can move from the National Consumer Commission, which investigates alleged contraventions of the Act, to the National Consumer Tribunal, which has the power to declare conduct prohibited and to make binding remedial orders, including refunds or replacements. On appeal, the courts do not rehear the dispute from scratch. Instead, they ask whether the Tribunal’s findings are supported by the evidence and whether the CPA was correctly applied. Where the Tribunal has acted within its statutory mandate, a court will be slow to interfere.

The judgment is especially significant for its treatment of the burden of proof. Proceedings before the Tribunal are decided on a balance of probabilities, but the Court confirmed that, in certain circumstances, a consumer need not prove the technical cause of a defect. Where serious problems emerge shortly after delivery, that sequence of events can be enough to support an inference that the goods were defective at the time of sale. The onus then shifts to the supplier to rebut that inference, for example, by showing that the problems flowed from the consumer’s misuse or negligence.

That allocation of the onus carries a clear compliance lesson: suppliers should properly document the condition of goods at the point of sale, so that they are able to discharge that burden if the goods fail soon after delivery.

What this means for business

For any business supplying goods to consumers, the takeaway is unambiguous. The CPA sets a firm baseline for quality, disclosure and fairness. Second-hand goods are not exempt, and voetstoots clauses are not a shield against liability. Genuine compliance demands more than a well-drafted disclaimer, it requires transparency and a realistic assessment of the risks a supplier continues to carry long after the sale closes.

The Edan Traders decision is a stark reminder that the CPA’s enforcement framework has real and immediate commercial consequences. Compliance is not optional. It is a legal, financial and reputational priority for every supplier operating in consumer markets.

This article is provided for general information and does not constitute legal advice. If your business supplies goods to consumers and you would like to review your sale agreements, disclosure practices or CPA compliance, the team at Mayet Law is able to assist. Visit www.mayet.law to get in touch.