[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[City, State, ZIP Code]
[Email Address]
[Phone Number]
[Date]
Guzman (Pty) Ltd
[Company Address]
[City, State, ZIP Code]
ATTN: [Recipient's Name]
Subject: Letter of Demand - Defective Oven and Refund
Dear [Recipient's Name],
I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to you on behalf of my client, Mrs van Rensburg, regarding the recent purchase of an oven from your company. As you may be aware, Mrs van Rensburg received a defective oven, which has led to a breach of contract. We expect your prompt attention to this matter and the fulfillment of our client's legal rights as outlined below.
Under common law, it is clear that Mrs van Rensburg is entitled to claim common law remedies for the breach of contract she has experienced. As a result, she has the right to demand a refund as compensation for the defective oven that did not serve its intended purpose.
Furthermore, the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 protects consumers like Mrs van Rensburg against receiving defective goods. Section 55(2) of the mentioned Act explicitly states that consumers have a right to receive goods of good quality, which are suitable for the intended purpose, durable for a reasonable time period, and compliant with the Standards Act 23 of 1993.
Additionally, section 56(1) of the Consumer Protection Act establishes an implied warranty by sellers, which entitles consumers to return goods within six months of delivery if they are found to be defective. Mrs van Rensburg adhered to this provision by returning the defective oven within three weeks, well within the stipulated six-month timeframe. In accordance with section 56(2) of the Act, a consumer has the right to request the seller to either repair, replace, or refund the defective goods. In this case, our client is demanding a refund as the most appropriate remedy considering the circumstances.
We acknowledge that Guzman (Pty) Ltd argues that the contract is not cancelled due to Mrs van Rensburg's failure to send a specific cancellation notice as required by the contract. However, our interpretation of the cancellation clause reveals ambiguity, and therefore, it should be interpreted in favor of Mrs van Rensburg. Additionally, we draw your attention to the fact that Mrs van Rensburg is an Afrikaans speaking person, whereas the contract was written solely in English. Under section 63 of the National Credit Act 34 of 2005, consumers are entitled to receive documents in a language they understand. Therefore, there may have been a language barrier for our client in fully comprehending the contractual terms.
It is crucial to highlight the principles established in the Standard Bank of South Africa v Dlamini case, where the court emphasized the importance of suppliers informing consumers of their rights and duties. In that case, the court ordered the cancellation of the contract as Mr. Dlamini was not properly informed and could not understand the English language. The court further emphasized the significance of unambiguous and clear contractual terms, suggesting that the interpretation of such clauses should be made against the party that drafted them.
In conclusion, we assert that Mrs van Rensburg is entitled to a refund based on the common law principle of breach of contract, the language barrier issue, and the ambiguity of the cancellation clause. We kindly request your immediate attention to this matter and a prompt response outlining your decision to fulfill our client's demands for a refund within [reasonable timeframe]. Failure to do so will leave us with no choice but to escalate this matter through legal channels.
We look forward to your prompt response and a favorable resolution to this dispute. Should you have any questions or require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me at your earliest convenience.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Title/Position]
[Law Firm Name]