A used-car dealer must refund a buyer R169,990 after the vehicle’s engine failed within four months. It must also pay more than R202,000 in storage costs after refusing to take the car back.
On the 5 October, the Western Cape High Court found that Purple Rain Properties No 112 had breached the Consumer Protection Act by selling Lise Julie Dean a defective vehicle.
The company must also refund the full purchase price. It cannot deduct money for the time she used the car.
Deputy Judge President, Patricia Lynette Goliath also ordered the dealer to pay R202,425.80 in storage costs. Further storage charges were payable at R1,200 a month up to the date of judgment.
The ruling followed a dispute over a second-hand 2013 Volvo S60 that Dean bought on 21 October 2021. The vehicle cost R169,990.
Within months, problems developed in its cooling system. On 2 February 2022, a warning indicated that the coolant level was low. Dean’s husband topped up the coolant. The dealer then asked him to bring the vehicle to its workshop.
The following day, the workshop found that a cracked expansion tank was causing water to leak from the cooling system.
The dealer carried out what it described as a “temporary and critical” repair. The vehicle was returned to Dean’s family.
But the repair did not prevent a more serious failure. On 7 February 2022, while travelling from Knysna to Hermanus, the Volvo displayed an engine-performance warning and stopped near Caledon.
Black smoke came from the exhaust. The vehicle was examined by Rola Volvo in Somerset West. The assessment found that the engine had lost compression and that coolant was escaping between the cylinder and engine block.
The engine had suffered overheating damage. A repair quotation came to R165,627.60. Dean demanded a refund on 28 February 2022 and offered to return the vehicle but the dealer refused.
The Volvo was subsequently stored in Knysna. It remained inoperable. Dean approached the Motor Industry Ombudsman, which recommended cancellation of the sale and a partial refund on 10 October 2022. The dealer rejected that recommendation. Dean then took the dispute to court.
The central question was whether the vehicle met the quality and durability standards required by the Consumer Protection Act.
Section 55 requires goods to be reasonably suitable for their intended purpose, in good working order and free of defects. They must also remain usable and durable for a reasonable period.
Section 56 provides an implied warranty of quality. It allows consumers to return goods that fail to meet the required standards within six months of delivery. The court found that Dean had reported problems within that period. The cooling-system defect appeared soon after the sale, and the engine subsequently failed.
The dealer presented no witness evidence to contradict her account. The court found that the cooling-system problems caused the engine to overheat and suffer serious damage. The vehicle became unusable about three and a half months after delivery. There was no evidence that Dean’s negligence caused the breakdown.
The judge found that a reasonable consumer would have expected the vehicle to remain durable for longer, taking its service history into account. The fact that the car was second-hand did not remove the protections available under the Consumer Protection Act.
The court concluded that the vehicle failed to meet the required standards. Dean was entitled to cancel the agreement and receive a full refund. The dealer had argued that Dean had not sufficiently proved all the additional damages she claimed.
But the court found that the refusal to accept the vehicle’s return had caused further storage costs. Dean had been forced to preserve the defective car while pursuing legal action.
The judge found that the dealer could have limited those costs but failed to do so. The court held that it was fair and just to make the company pay them.
The sale agreement was formally cancelled. Purple Rain Properties must refund the full R169,990 purchase price and pay R202,425.80 in storage costs, together with interest and legal costs.
The storage award alone exceeds the vehicle’s purchase price.
The judgment is a reminder that consumers who buy defective goods may have remedies under the Consumer Protection Act. It also shows how refusing to resolve a dispute can increase a supplier’s financial exposure.
