“Lemon law, noun – a law that states that you can return a motor vehicle to get it repaired or your money back if the vehicle is no good.” (Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries)

The car you just bought on instalment sale turns out to be a complete lemon. But when you return it to the dealership and cancel the sale, the bank still enforces the finance agreement and sues you for damages.

“Sorry to hear about the defects,” says the bank. “But that’s not our problem. We weren’t the supplier; we just financed the transaction. Your claim is against the dealership. You’re still bound by the instalment sale agreement and must cover our losses.”

Sued by the bank after buying a dud 4x4

A motor dealership in Koster (a small farming town in the North West Province) sold a 5-year-old Ford Ranger 3.2 TDCI 4x4 automatic to a mother, who bought it on behalf of her son with bank financing on an instalment sale basis.

All pretty standard stuff… Until, just four days after delivery, the oil cooler and gearbox started giving problems. The son returned it to the dealership, which replaced the gearbox. But then less than two months later, the vehicle overheated. Unsurprisingly the son returned it to the dealership as a dud that he no longer wanted. His mother, as buyer, formally cancelled the agreement with a lawyer’s letter.

The bank sued her for damages, and while it was successful in the High Court, the SCA (Supreme Court of Appeal) reversed that decision and upheld the buyer’s counterclaim for cancellation of the instalment sale and restitution of everything she had paid the bank. The bank must accordingly refund her the deposit and all the instalments she had paid it, together with interest and costs.

That outcome, and the SCA’s reasoning in reaching it, hold important lessons for all suppliers of goods of all kinds (not just vehicles), buyers, and banks.

When you buy a lemon, here’s how to make lemonade

The buyer’s success hinged on the Court’s findings that:

• The vehicle was seriously defective (probably because the incorrect gearbox had been fitted after an accident) and therefore unfit for its intended purpose.
• The defects were “latent”: hidden problems not visible on inspection.
• The buyer was entitled to rely on the “redhibitory action” (actio redhibitoria to lawyers), an old remedy that allows you to cancel a sale of defective goods, return them to the seller, and claim your money back. You will have to show that the defects existed at the time of sale, and that you, acting reasonably, wouldn’t have bought the goods had you known of the defects.
• The fact that the buyer had allowed the dealership to attempt repairs did not affect her right to cancel because it didn’t amount to a waiver (abandonment) of her rights.
• The Consumer Protection Act (CPA) generally requires consumers to exhaust all alternative dispute resolution remedies (such as referring complaints to the applicable Ombud) before going to court. In this case, however, because the bank had already sued the buyer in the High Court, she could raise her counterclaim as part of the same proceedings without first approaching an Ombud.
• Although the finance agreement itself fell under the National Credit Act (NCA), the vehicle (the goods) was still protected by the CPA – and that, as we shall see below, was critical to the outcome here.
• Equally importantly, the bank was not, as it argued, merely the financier. The wording of its own agreement showed that it acted as both the credit provider and the supplier.
• That’s a critical finding, because as “supplier” of the vehicle, the bank was subject to the CPA’s consumer protections, including the requirement that goods must be fit for purpose, of good quality, and free of defects.

Precedent setting?

After this far-reaching decision banks can no longer say “sorry, we just financed the deal, you must sue the seller”. Of course, any banks with differently worded agreements might still be able to argue that they really were nothing more than the finance providers, but banks generally will no doubt take steps now to mitigate this new risk. Perhaps we can expect much tighter lending restrictions or reworded finance agreements? Time alone will tell what they come up with.

For now, though, whether you are suing the seller or the bank to get your money back, your position will be a strong one if you can prove all the above factors.

Act quickly!

As a final cautionary note, the Court made it clear that you must act (i.e. cancel the sale and return the goods) within “a reasonable time” after discovering the defects.

So don’t delay. If you find out you bought a lemon and the seller refuses to cancel the sale and refund you, call us immediately.

“Fraud unravels property transactions even where innocent third parties are involved.” (Extract from judgment)

Congratulations, you’re the proud new owner of your dream home! Your name’s on the title deeds, and your ownership is registered in the Deeds Office. That’s conclusive proof that the house is yours, right? Regrettably, this isn’t always the case…

Although registration is usually proof of ownership, there are exceptions. One exception is fraud. And a recent High Court case is a sharp reminder to every party to a property sale and transfer (seller, buyer, estate agent, conveyancer and bonding bank) that any sale and transfer tainted by fraud will almost certainly unravel.

As we shall see, a crooked “conveyancer” was at the heart of this particular saga, so perhaps the most important lesson here is one for sellers. Choose your conveyancer with care!

A crooked “conveyancer” defrauds both seller and buyer

Many of the facts in this convoluted story were in dispute, but the Court’s decision rested on these findings:

The owner, since 2011, of a house in Bloemfontein lived there with her elderly mother. She signed an agreement in 2020 to sell it for R300k to a trust. The sole trustee’s wife was an attorney, but not a qualified conveyancer. Nevertheless, she was appointed in the sale agreement as the “conveyancer” to attend to the transfer.

Shortly after signing the deed of sale, the owner changed her mind and said she was cancelling the sale. Although her “cancellation” seems to have been accepted by the trust, it was invalid for lack of being recorded in writing and signed. What her attempt at cancellation did prove was that she no longer had any intention of passing transfer to the trust. Moreover, the whole sale agreement fell through when the trust failed to get a bond as required by the bond clause. In the end, the owner received not a cent of the R300k, and presumably she spent the next three years happily confident that the sale had fallen away.

Imagine her shock when in 2023 she received an eviction application from a couple who had, without her knowledge, bought the house from the trust for R480k. Only then did she find out that the trustee and his attorney wife had secretly transferred her house, in consecutive transfers on the same day in 2022, firstly from her to the trust, and then from the trust to the couple. The couple were of course now convinced that the house belonged to them.

Off went our original owner to the High Court, which held that there was no doubt that the husband-and-wife team of trustee and attorney had acted in cahoots to defraud both the original owner and the eventual buyers. It accordingly declared both sales and transfers to be invalid and ordered the house to be re-transferred to the original owner.

Fraud unravels all

At the heart of the Court’s decision lies the old Roman concept of fraus omnia vitiat or “fraud unravels all”. There are some exceptions to the application of this principle in our modern law, but the general rule remains that where a property sale is tainted by fraud, any purported sale or transfer of ownership resulting from it is null and void.

Moreover, one can never pass on to another person more rights than one has. Since the sale to the trust was void, all subsequent sales must also be void regardless of registration of transfer. In any case, the second sale agreement had lapsed, again because of non-fulfilment of a bond clause.

For all those and a variety of other reasons, the original owner had never lost her ownership despite the transfers being registered in the Deeds Office.

The couple who bought the house for R480k must now presumably carry on paying their home loan instalments despite having no asset to show for it, and will be wondering whether they can recover their losses from anyone.

Everyone’s at risk, innocent or not

As the Court put it: “Fraud unravels property transactions even where innocent third parties are involved.”

• Innocent or not, the seller might have lost her house had she been found to have enabled the fraud.
• The buyers, despite being innocent of any fraud, did lose their house. They also have to pay legal costs (the Court criticised their delay in pursuing transfer and in finding out about the occupants) and have no guarantee of getting their money back from anyone.
• Even the estate agents and the bank might have found themselves accused of negligence, perhaps for failing to inspect the house and asking the occupants about the basis for their occupancy. Had they done that, they would have uncovered the fraud.

Bottom line is this: Sellers, don’t take chances when choosing your conveyancer!

The National Minimum Wage (NMW) for each “ordinary hour worked” has been increased from 1 March 2026 by 5% from R28,79 per hour to R30,23 per hour.

Domestic workers: Assuming a work month of 22 days x 8 hours per day, R30,23 per hour equates to R241,84 per day or R5320,48 per month. Of course, this is just the bare legal minimum. The Living Wage calculator will help you check whether you are actually paying enough to cover a household’s “minimal need” (adjust the “Assumptions” in the calculator to ensure that the figures used are up-to-date).

“Nemo plus iuris ad alium transferre potest quam ipse habet”

As intimidating as that old Roman law adage sounds, it has a very simple and common sense meaning: No one can transfer more rights to another than he himself has.

Often referred to as the nemo plus iuris rule, it was formulated by one of Rome’s great jurists, Ulpian, and eighteen hundred years later it is still regularly quoted in our modern courts. To take one example, if you don’t own that house you’re selling me, you can’t transfer ownership to me. With only a few exceptions, that remains our law today.