CVdB
Charnelle Van den Berg
1 reviews | Active since Mar 2016
13 Jan 2026, 07:39
Misrepresentation of Delivery Terms and Withholding of Goods
We engaged Omega Industries based on a written quotation which explicitly included “Delivery – Free delivery” as part of the quoted scope. Payment was made in full on the strength of that quotation.
After payment and dispatch, we were contacted by a third-party courier and instructed to pay courier charges for the boots. No prior written notice was ever provided that courier costs would be for the client’s account, nor was any amendment to the quotation issued or accepted before dispatch.
When this was queried, Omega Industries asserted that:
delivery terms were merely “goodwill indications” despite being itemized in the quotation,
courier charges were allegedly disclosed beforehand (no proof was produced),
and that ownership of the goods had passed to the client while the goods were being withheld pending payment of additional charges.
Omega Industries further indicated that if courier charges were not paid, the goods would be returned while payment already made would be retained. This position was communicated despite the absence of any agreed variation to the original quotation.
In summary:
A quotation stating free delivery was issued
Payment was made in reliance on that quotation
Additional courier charges were introduced after the fact
Goods were withheld unless further payment was made
Refund was refused unless the supplier’s revised terms were accepted
This experience reflects poor contract management, post-payment variation of terms, and an unwillingness to resolve a dispute reasonably when clear written documentation exists.
Potential customers are advised to exercise caution and ensure that all terms — especially delivery and logistics — are clearly confirmed and honoured before making payment.
Helpful (0)
Replies (28)0
Replies (28)
OMEGA INDUSTRIES's replyOfficial
11 Feb 2026, 23:31Official Response – Omega Industries (Pty) Ltd
For clarity and accuracy, the following factual position is placed on record in response to the January publication:
Quotation “Delivery – R0.00”
The quotation reflected a single line item: “Delivery – R0.00”.
This entry:
Did not specify a delivery address,
Did not specify a transport method,
Did not define geographic scope,
Was not expanded upon in any signed agreement.
No subsequent written agreement was concluded obligating Omega Industries to absorb unspecified third-party courier costs irrespective of distance or method.
The current dispute concerns interpretation of that line item, not non-performance.
Courier Charges “Introduced After Payment”
No variation of pricing occurred after payment.
The dispute relates to third-party courier costs for delivery to the client’s nominated address.
The goods themselves were fully paid for. No additional charge was added to the quoted product pricing.
Allegation That Goods Were “Withheld”
This is incorrect.
Completed goods were made available for collection. Collection options were communicated.
There has never been a refusal to release paid goods. The disagreement concerns who bears courier cost — not whether goods exist or will be supp****.
Refund Allegation
There was no contractual basis requiring a refund of fully manufactured goods made to order.
At all times, Omega Industries has remained willing to facilitate collection and handover of all completed items.
Contractual Context
This is a commercial dispute regarding delivery logistics and courier responsibility.
It is not:
*****,
Non-delivery after payment,
Or post-payment alteration of product pricing.
All documentation, quotation, purchase order, proof of payment, and correspondence is available should independent review be required.
Omega Industries remains willing to resolve the matter through proper legal and contractual channels.
For clarity and accuracy, the following factual position is placed on record in response to the January publication:
Quotation “Delivery – R0.00”
The quotation reflected a single line item: “Delivery – R0.00”.
This entry:
Did not specify a delivery address,
Did not specify a transport method,
Did not define geographic scope,
Was not expanded upon in any signed agreement.
No subsequent written agreement was concluded obligating Omega Industries to absorb unspecified third-party courier costs irrespective of distance or method.
The current dispute concerns interpretation of that line item, not non-performance.
Courier Charges “Introduced After Payment”
No variation of pricing occurred after payment.
The dispute relates to third-party courier costs for delivery to the client’s nominated address.
The goods themselves were fully paid for. No additional charge was added to the quoted product pricing.
Allegation That Goods Were “Withheld”
This is incorrect.
Completed goods were made available for collection. Collection options were communicated.
There has never been a refusal to release paid goods. The disagreement concerns who bears courier cost — not whether goods exist or will be supp****.
Refund Allegation
There was no contractual basis requiring a refund of fully manufactured goods made to order.
At all times, Omega Industries has remained willing to facilitate collection and handover of all completed items.
Contractual Context
This is a commercial dispute regarding delivery logistics and courier responsibility.
It is not:
*****,
Non-delivery after payment,
Or post-payment alteration of product pricing.
All documentation, quotation, purchase order, proof of payment, and correspondence is available should independent review be required.
Omega Industries remains willing to resolve the matter through proper legal and contractual channels.
OMEGA INDUSTRIES's reply11 Feb 2026, 23:31
Official
Official Response – Omega Industries (Pty) Ltd
For clarity and accuracy, the following factual position is placed on record in response to the January publication:
Quotation “Delivery – R0.00”
The quotation reflected a single line item: “Delivery – R0.00”.
This entry:
Did not specify a delivery address,
Did not specify a transport method,
Did not define geographic scope,
Was not expanded upon in any signed agreement.
No subsequent written agreement was concluded obligating Omega Industries to absorb unspecified third-party courier costs irrespective of distance or method.
The current dispute concerns interpretation of that line item, not non-performance.
Courier Charges “Introduced After Payment”
No variation of pricing occurred after payment.
The dispute relates to third-party courier costs for delivery to the client’s nominated address.
The goods themselves were fully paid for. No additional charge was added to the quoted product pricing.
Allegation That Goods Were “Withheld”
This is incorrect.
Completed goods were made available for collection. Collection options were communicated.
There has never been a refusal to release paid goods. The disagreement concerns who bears courier cost — not whether goods exist or will be supp****.
Refund Allegation
There was no contractual basis requiring a refund of fully manufactured goods made to order.
At all times, Omega Industries has remained willing to facilitate collection and handover of all completed items.
Contractual Context
This is a commercial dispute regarding delivery logistics and courier responsibility.
It is not:
*****,
Non-delivery after payment,
Or post-payment alteration of product pricing.
All documentation, quotation, purchase order, proof of payment, and correspondence is available should independent review be required.
Omega Industries remains willing to resolve the matter through proper legal and contractual channels.
For clarity and accuracy, the following factual position is placed on record in response to the January publication:
Quotation “Delivery – R0.00”
The quotation reflected a single line item: “Delivery – R0.00”.
This entry:
Did not specify a delivery address,
Did not specify a transport method,
Did not define geographic scope,
Was not expanded upon in any signed agreement.
No subsequent written agreement was concluded obligating Omega Industries to absorb unspecified third-party courier costs irrespective of distance or method.
The current dispute concerns interpretation of that line item, not non-performance.
Courier Charges “Introduced After Payment”
No variation of pricing occurred after payment.
The dispute relates to third-party courier costs for delivery to the client’s nominated address.
The goods themselves were fully paid for. No additional charge was added to the quoted product pricing.
Allegation That Goods Were “Withheld”
This is incorrect.
Completed goods were made available for collection. Collection options were communicated.
There has never been a refusal to release paid goods. The disagreement concerns who bears courier cost — not whether goods exist or will be supp****.
Refund Allegation
There was no contractual basis requiring a refund of fully manufactured goods made to order.
At all times, Omega Industries has remained willing to facilitate collection and handover of all completed items.
Contractual Context
This is a commercial dispute regarding delivery logistics and courier responsibility.
It is not:
*****,
Non-delivery after payment,
Or post-payment alteration of product pricing.
All documentation, quotation, purchase order, proof of payment, and correspondence is available should independent review be required.
Omega Industries remains willing to resolve the matter through proper legal and contractual channels.
CVdB
Charnelle Van den Berg's updateReviewer Update
12 Feb 2026, 07:00image.png 74.9 KBimage.png 107.98 KB
Omega's response contains a material misrepresentation. Their response claims: "The quotation reflected a single line item: 'Delivery – R0.00'" Actual quotation (attached): "Delivery: Free delivery - R0.00" Purchase Order (attached) specified: - Delivery date: 15 December 2025 - Delivery address: 65 President Street, Barberton, Mpumalanga, 1300 Paid in full December 2025. No delivery occurred. Goods remain withheld. LEGAL POSITION: Under South African contract law, a quotation constitutes an offer. Payment in accordance with that quotation constitutes acceptance. Once accepted, the contract is concluded on the terms stated in the quotation. The supplier cannot unilaterally modify contract terms after payment has been received. Any attempt to impose additional charges (R65,000 courier costs) or redefine agreed terms ("R0.00 doesn't mean zero") constitutes breach of contract. The Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008, Section 48(1) further provides that suppliers must perform services in the manner and time agreed. Non-delivery after full payment constitutes non-performance. Omega's claim that "free delivery" was ambiguous contradicts their own September 2025 quotation which stated: "R76,420 (includes free delivery)" - establishing "free delivery" as a concrete commercial term in prior dealings between the parties. All evidence available to legal representatives.
CVdB
Charnelle Van den Berg's update12 Feb 2026, 07:00
Reviewer Update
image.png 74.9 KBimage.png 107.98 KB
Omega's response contains a material misrepresentation. Their response claims: "The quotation reflected a single line item: 'Delivery – R0.00'" Actual quotation (attached): "Delivery: Free delivery - R0.00" Purchase Order (attached) specified: - Delivery date: 15 December 2025 - Delivery address: 65 President Street, Barberton, Mpumalanga, 1300 Paid in full December 2025. No delivery occurred. Goods remain withheld. LEGAL POSITION: Under South African contract law, a quotation constitutes an offer. Payment in accordance with that quotation constitutes acceptance. Once accepted, the contract is concluded on the terms stated in the quotation. The supplier cannot unilaterally modify contract terms after payment has been received. Any attempt to impose additional charges (R65,000 courier costs) or redefine agreed terms ("R0.00 doesn't mean zero") constitutes breach of contract. The Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008, Section 48(1) further provides that suppliers must perform services in the manner and time agreed. Non-delivery after full payment constitutes non-performance. Omega's claim that "free delivery" was ambiguous contradicts their own September 2025 quotation which stated: "R76,420 (includes free delivery)" - establishing "free delivery" as a concrete commercial term in prior dealings between the parties. All evidence available to legal representatives.
CVdB
Charnelle Van den Berg's updateReviewer Update
12 Feb 2026, 07:17Screenshot 2026-02-12 065241.png 73.97 KB
CVdB
Charnelle Van den Berg's update12 Feb 2026, 07:17
Reviewer Update
Screenshot 2026-02-12 065241.png 73.97 KB
CVdB
Charnelle Van den Berg's updateReviewer Update
12 Feb 2026, 07:17osopos.png 107.98 KB
CVdB
Charnelle Van den Berg's update12 Feb 2026, 07:17
Reviewer Update
osopos.png 107.98 KB
OMEGA INDUSTRIES's replyOfficial
12 Feb 2026, 09:09For clarity and accuracy, the following factual corrections are necessary:
1. PAYMENT DATE
The Purchase Order reflects a proposed delivery date of 15 December 2025.
However, no payment had been made by that date.
The first payment was received on 23 December 2025, with the balance following thereafter.
Full payment was therefore only completed after 15 December 2025.
The Purchase Order itself states:
“Goods shall only be supp**** and released once full payment obligation has been fulfilled and reflected in the supplier’s account.”
It is therefore factually incorrect to suggest non-delivery by 15 December when payment had not yet been effected.
2. DELIVERY – R0.00 / “FREE DELIVERY”
The quotation reflects “Delivery – R0.00”.
No specific courier method, geographic scope, transport provider, or nationwide delivery obligation was defined in any signed agreement.
No signed amendment or written undertaking exists obligating Omega Industries to absorb unspecified third-party courier costs months later.
This matter concerns interpretation of courier responsibility — not refusal to supply goods.
3. GOODS AVAILABILITY
At no stage were goods refused.
Completed goods have been available for collection.
The dispute relates only to courier allocation. It is incorrect to state that goods are being withheld as leverage. Collection has consistently been available.
4. ALLEGED ADDITIONAL CHARGES
Figures referenced in this thread (including R65,000 and R76,420) do not appear on the quotation in question and were not imposed as new contract variations post-payment.
The matter relates to courier logistics — not a re-pricing of the original goods.
5. RESPONSE TO LEGAL CORRESPONDENCE
It has been publicly stated that no responses were received to legal correspondence.
Multiple written responses were in fact delivered on record.
This is a commercial contractual dispute regarding delivery logistics, not *****, not disappearance, and not non-performance.
All documentation — quotation, purchase order, payment records, and correspondence — remains available for formal legal review.
We remain open to resolution through proper legal channels.
1. PAYMENT DATE
The Purchase Order reflects a proposed delivery date of 15 December 2025.
However, no payment had been made by that date.
The first payment was received on 23 December 2025, with the balance following thereafter.
Full payment was therefore only completed after 15 December 2025.
The Purchase Order itself states:
“Goods shall only be supp**** and released once full payment obligation has been fulfilled and reflected in the supplier’s account.”
It is therefore factually incorrect to suggest non-delivery by 15 December when payment had not yet been effected.
2. DELIVERY – R0.00 / “FREE DELIVERY”
The quotation reflects “Delivery – R0.00”.
No specific courier method, geographic scope, transport provider, or nationwide delivery obligation was defined in any signed agreement.
No signed amendment or written undertaking exists obligating Omega Industries to absorb unspecified third-party courier costs months later.
This matter concerns interpretation of courier responsibility — not refusal to supply goods.
3. GOODS AVAILABILITY
At no stage were goods refused.
Completed goods have been available for collection.
The dispute relates only to courier allocation. It is incorrect to state that goods are being withheld as leverage. Collection has consistently been available.
4. ALLEGED ADDITIONAL CHARGES
Figures referenced in this thread (including R65,000 and R76,420) do not appear on the quotation in question and were not imposed as new contract variations post-payment.
The matter relates to courier logistics — not a re-pricing of the original goods.
5. RESPONSE TO LEGAL CORRESPONDENCE
It has been publicly stated that no responses were received to legal correspondence.
Multiple written responses were in fact delivered on record.
This is a commercial contractual dispute regarding delivery logistics, not *****, not disappearance, and not non-performance.
All documentation — quotation, purchase order, payment records, and correspondence — remains available for formal legal review.
We remain open to resolution through proper legal channels.
OMEGA INDUSTRIES's reply12 Feb 2026, 09:09
Official
For clarity and accuracy, the following factual corrections are necessary:
1. PAYMENT DATE
The Purchase Order reflects a proposed delivery date of 15 December 2025.
However, no payment had been made by that date.
The first payment was received on 23 December 2025, with the balance following thereafter.
Full payment was therefore only completed after 15 December 2025.
The Purchase Order itself states:
“Goods shall only be supp**** and released once full payment obligation has been fulfilled and reflected in the supplier’s account.”
It is therefore factually incorrect to suggest non-delivery by 15 December when payment had not yet been effected.
2. DELIVERY – R0.00 / “FREE DELIVERY”
The quotation reflects “Delivery – R0.00”.
No specific courier method, geographic scope, transport provider, or nationwide delivery obligation was defined in any signed agreement.
No signed amendment or written undertaking exists obligating Omega Industries to absorb unspecified third-party courier costs months later.
This matter concerns interpretation of courier responsibility — not refusal to supply goods.
3. GOODS AVAILABILITY
At no stage were goods refused.
Completed goods have been available for collection.
The dispute relates only to courier allocation. It is incorrect to state that goods are being withheld as leverage. Collection has consistently been available.
4. ALLEGED ADDITIONAL CHARGES
Figures referenced in this thread (including R65,000 and R76,420) do not appear on the quotation in question and were not imposed as new contract variations post-payment.
The matter relates to courier logistics — not a re-pricing of the original goods.
5. RESPONSE TO LEGAL CORRESPONDENCE
It has been publicly stated that no responses were received to legal correspondence.
Multiple written responses were in fact delivered on record.
This is a commercial contractual dispute regarding delivery logistics, not *****, not disappearance, and not non-performance.
All documentation — quotation, purchase order, payment records, and correspondence — remains available for formal legal review.
We remain open to resolution through proper legal channels.
1. PAYMENT DATE
The Purchase Order reflects a proposed delivery date of 15 December 2025.
However, no payment had been made by that date.
The first payment was received on 23 December 2025, with the balance following thereafter.
Full payment was therefore only completed after 15 December 2025.
The Purchase Order itself states:
“Goods shall only be supp**** and released once full payment obligation has been fulfilled and reflected in the supplier’s account.”
It is therefore factually incorrect to suggest non-delivery by 15 December when payment had not yet been effected.
2. DELIVERY – R0.00 / “FREE DELIVERY”
The quotation reflects “Delivery – R0.00”.
No specific courier method, geographic scope, transport provider, or nationwide delivery obligation was defined in any signed agreement.
No signed amendment or written undertaking exists obligating Omega Industries to absorb unspecified third-party courier costs months later.
This matter concerns interpretation of courier responsibility — not refusal to supply goods.
3. GOODS AVAILABILITY
At no stage were goods refused.
Completed goods have been available for collection.
The dispute relates only to courier allocation. It is incorrect to state that goods are being withheld as leverage. Collection has consistently been available.
4. ALLEGED ADDITIONAL CHARGES
Figures referenced in this thread (including R65,000 and R76,420) do not appear on the quotation in question and were not imposed as new contract variations post-payment.
The matter relates to courier logistics — not a re-pricing of the original goods.
5. RESPONSE TO LEGAL CORRESPONDENCE
It has been publicly stated that no responses were received to legal correspondence.
Multiple written responses were in fact delivered on record.
This is a commercial contractual dispute regarding delivery logistics, not *****, not disappearance, and not non-performance.
All documentation — quotation, purchase order, payment records, and correspondence — remains available for formal legal review.
We remain open to resolution through proper legal channels.
OMEGA INDUSTRIES's replyOfficial
12 Feb 2026, 09:24For clarity and public record:
The figures “R65,000 courier costs” and “R76,420 (includes free delivery)” referenced in the latest reply do not appear in any quotation, invoice, email, or formal communication issued by Omega Industries in relation to this order.
We formally request that the author indicate precisely where these figures appear in the contractual documentation forming the subject of this dispute.
The only quotation accepted and paid for is Quote #7814. That document reflects a delivery line item of R0.00. It does not contain the figures now being referenced publicly.
Full payment was not effected by 15 December 2025. Payment was first received on 23 December 2025, with the balance following thereafter. The Purchase Order itself states that goods are supp**** and released only once full payment has been reflected in the supplier’s account.
At no stage did Omega Industries sign or accept a guaranteed delivery date of 15 December 2025 in writing.
All completed goods have been made available for collection. There has been no refusal to supply goods. The dispute relates solely to allocation of courier logistics after delayed payment.
All correspondence with legal representatives has been responded to. Any suggestion that there has been “no response” is factually incorrect and documented.
We remain willing to resolve this matter through proper legal channels where full documentary evidence can be evaluated objectively.
Public commentary introducing figures not contained in the contractual documents does not assist resolution.
The figures “R65,000 courier costs” and “R76,420 (includes free delivery)” referenced in the latest reply do not appear in any quotation, invoice, email, or formal communication issued by Omega Industries in relation to this order.
We formally request that the author indicate precisely where these figures appear in the contractual documentation forming the subject of this dispute.
The only quotation accepted and paid for is Quote #7814. That document reflects a delivery line item of R0.00. It does not contain the figures now being referenced publicly.
Full payment was not effected by 15 December 2025. Payment was first received on 23 December 2025, with the balance following thereafter. The Purchase Order itself states that goods are supp**** and released only once full payment has been reflected in the supplier’s account.
At no stage did Omega Industries sign or accept a guaranteed delivery date of 15 December 2025 in writing.
All completed goods have been made available for collection. There has been no refusal to supply goods. The dispute relates solely to allocation of courier logistics after delayed payment.
All correspondence with legal representatives has been responded to. Any suggestion that there has been “no response” is factually incorrect and documented.
We remain willing to resolve this matter through proper legal channels where full documentary evidence can be evaluated objectively.
Public commentary introducing figures not contained in the contractual documents does not assist resolution.
OMEGA INDUSTRIES's reply12 Feb 2026, 09:24
Official
For clarity and public record:
The figures “R65,000 courier costs” and “R76,420 (includes free delivery)” referenced in the latest reply do not appear in any quotation, invoice, email, or formal communication issued by Omega Industries in relation to this order.
We formally request that the author indicate precisely where these figures appear in the contractual documentation forming the subject of this dispute.
The only quotation accepted and paid for is Quote #7814. That document reflects a delivery line item of R0.00. It does not contain the figures now being referenced publicly.
Full payment was not effected by 15 December 2025. Payment was first received on 23 December 2025, with the balance following thereafter. The Purchase Order itself states that goods are supp**** and released only once full payment has been reflected in the supplier’s account.
At no stage did Omega Industries sign or accept a guaranteed delivery date of 15 December 2025 in writing.
All completed goods have been made available for collection. There has been no refusal to supply goods. The dispute relates solely to allocation of courier logistics after delayed payment.
All correspondence with legal representatives has been responded to. Any suggestion that there has been “no response” is factually incorrect and documented.
We remain willing to resolve this matter through proper legal channels where full documentary evidence can be evaluated objectively.
Public commentary introducing figures not contained in the contractual documents does not assist resolution.
The figures “R65,000 courier costs” and “R76,420 (includes free delivery)” referenced in the latest reply do not appear in any quotation, invoice, email, or formal communication issued by Omega Industries in relation to this order.
We formally request that the author indicate precisely where these figures appear in the contractual documentation forming the subject of this dispute.
The only quotation accepted and paid for is Quote #7814. That document reflects a delivery line item of R0.00. It does not contain the figures now being referenced publicly.
Full payment was not effected by 15 December 2025. Payment was first received on 23 December 2025, with the balance following thereafter. The Purchase Order itself states that goods are supp**** and released only once full payment has been reflected in the supplier’s account.
At no stage did Omega Industries sign or accept a guaranteed delivery date of 15 December 2025 in writing.
All completed goods have been made available for collection. There has been no refusal to supply goods. The dispute relates solely to allocation of courier logistics after delayed payment.
All correspondence with legal representatives has been responded to. Any suggestion that there has been “no response” is factually incorrect and documented.
We remain willing to resolve this matter through proper legal channels where full documentary evidence can be evaluated objectively.
Public commentary introducing figures not contained in the contractual documents does not assist resolution.
CVdB
Charnelle Van den Berg's updateReviewer Update
12 Feb 2026, 09:56FACTS OF THIS ORDER:
**Quote #7814 (16 October 2025):**
- Supplier: Omega Industries (Pty) Ltd
- Line item: "Delivery: Free delivery - R0.00"
- Total quoted: R284,002.00
**Purchase Order PO*** (28 November 2025):**
- References Quote #7814
- Delivery address: 65 President Street, Barberton, Mpumalanga, 1300
- Suspensive condition: "Goods shall only be supp**** once full payment is fulfilled"
**Payment:**
- 20 December 2025: R142,000.00
- 23 December 2025: R142,000.00
- Total paid: R284,002.00 (full payment completed 23 December 2025)
**Current Status (12 February 2026):**
- 51 days since payment completed
- Zero delivery has occurred
- Goods held by third-party courier requiring payment for release
- Supplier position: Customer must pay courier costs
- Customer position: Quote states "Free delivery - R0.00"
**Note on "Free Delivery" Interpretation:**
The September 2025 quotation (R76,420) is referenced solely to demonstrate how Omega Industries uses "free delivery" as a standard commercial term in their business practice. That quotation explicitly stated "includes free delivery" - establishing their own definition of what this term means.
**The Core Dispute:**
Quote #7814 states "Delivery: Free delivery - R0.00"
If this does NOT mean delivery costs are included, what does it mean?
Why include a delivery line item at R0.00 if customer must arrange and pay for all delivery?
Documentation available for legal review.
**Quote #7814 (16 October 2025):**
- Supplier: Omega Industries (Pty) Ltd
- Line item: "Delivery: Free delivery - R0.00"
- Total quoted: R284,002.00
**Purchase Order PO*** (28 November 2025):**
- References Quote #7814
- Delivery address: 65 President Street, Barberton, Mpumalanga, 1300
- Suspensive condition: "Goods shall only be supp**** once full payment is fulfilled"
**Payment:**
- 20 December 2025: R142,000.00
- 23 December 2025: R142,000.00
- Total paid: R284,002.00 (full payment completed 23 December 2025)
**Current Status (12 February 2026):**
- 51 days since payment completed
- Zero delivery has occurred
- Goods held by third-party courier requiring payment for release
- Supplier position: Customer must pay courier costs
- Customer position: Quote states "Free delivery - R0.00"
**Note on "Free Delivery" Interpretation:**
The September 2025 quotation (R76,420) is referenced solely to demonstrate how Omega Industries uses "free delivery" as a standard commercial term in their business practice. That quotation explicitly stated "includes free delivery" - establishing their own definition of what this term means.
**The Core Dispute:**
Quote #7814 states "Delivery: Free delivery - R0.00"
If this does NOT mean delivery costs are included, what does it mean?
Why include a delivery line item at R0.00 if customer must arrange and pay for all delivery?
Documentation available for legal review.
CVdB
Charnelle Van den Berg's update12 Feb 2026, 09:56
Reviewer Update
FACTS OF THIS ORDER:
**Quote #7814 (16 October 2025):**
- Supplier: Omega Industries (Pty) Ltd
- Line item: "Delivery: Free delivery - R0.00"
- Total quoted: R284,002.00
**Purchase Order PO*** (28 November 2025):**
- References Quote #7814
- Delivery address: 65 President Street, Barberton, Mpumalanga, 1300
- Suspensive condition: "Goods shall only be supp**** once full payment is fulfilled"
**Payment:**
- 20 December 2025: R142,000.00
- 23 December 2025: R142,000.00
- Total paid: R284,002.00 (full payment completed 23 December 2025)
**Current Status (12 February 2026):**
- 51 days since payment completed
- Zero delivery has occurred
- Goods held by third-party courier requiring payment for release
- Supplier position: Customer must pay courier costs
- Customer position: Quote states "Free delivery - R0.00"
**Note on "Free Delivery" Interpretation:**
The September 2025 quotation (R76,420) is referenced solely to demonstrate how Omega Industries uses "free delivery" as a standard commercial term in their business practice. That quotation explicitly stated "includes free delivery" - establishing their own definition of what this term means.
**The Core Dispute:**
Quote #7814 states "Delivery: Free delivery - R0.00"
If this does NOT mean delivery costs are included, what does it mean?
Why include a delivery line item at R0.00 if customer must arrange and pay for all delivery?
Documentation available for legal review.
**Quote #7814 (16 October 2025):**
- Supplier: Omega Industries (Pty) Ltd
- Line item: "Delivery: Free delivery - R0.00"
- Total quoted: R284,002.00
**Purchase Order PO*** (28 November 2025):**
- References Quote #7814
- Delivery address: 65 President Street, Barberton, Mpumalanga, 1300
- Suspensive condition: "Goods shall only be supp**** once full payment is fulfilled"
**Payment:**
- 20 December 2025: R142,000.00
- 23 December 2025: R142,000.00
- Total paid: R284,002.00 (full payment completed 23 December 2025)
**Current Status (12 February 2026):**
- 51 days since payment completed
- Zero delivery has occurred
- Goods held by third-party courier requiring payment for release
- Supplier position: Customer must pay courier costs
- Customer position: Quote states "Free delivery - R0.00"
**Note on "Free Delivery" Interpretation:**
The September 2025 quotation (R76,420) is referenced solely to demonstrate how Omega Industries uses "free delivery" as a standard commercial term in their business practice. That quotation explicitly stated "includes free delivery" - establishing their own definition of what this term means.
**The Core Dispute:**
Quote #7814 states "Delivery: Free delivery - R0.00"
If this does NOT mean delivery costs are included, what does it mean?
Why include a delivery line item at R0.00 if customer must arrange and pay for all delivery?
Documentation available for legal review.
OMEGA INDUSTRIES's replyOfficial
12 Feb 2026, 10:20Official Response – Clarification of Public Misstatements
For the sake of accuracy and public record, the following clarifications are necessary:
- Delivery Date (15 December 2025)
The Purchase Order reflects a proposed delivery date of 15 December 2025.
Full payment was only completed on 23 December 2025.
The same Purchase Order clearly states:
"Goods shall only be supp**** and released once full payment obligation has been fulfilled and reflected in the supplier’s account."
"Goods shall only be supp**** and released once full payment obligation has been fulfilled and reflected in the supplier’s account."
It is therefore factually incorrect to suggest non-delivery by 15 December when payment had not yet been completed by that date.
- Availability of Goods
All completed goods have been made available for collection.
There has never been a refusal to release paid goods.
The dispute relates solely to responsibility for courier costs. - Courier Cost Allegations (R65,000 / R76,420 etc.)
No quotation issued by us reflects courier charges of R65,000, R76,420 or similar amounts as alleged in this post.
These figures do not appear on Quote #7814 and were never issued as additional charges in any written quotation.
If such figures are being referenced, we formally request that the exact document be produced.
- “Delivery – Free delivery – R0.00” Line Item
Quote #7814 reflects a single line item: “Delivery – R0.00.”
It does not specify:
- Address scope
- Transport method
- Geographic range
- Post-payment extended logistics
No separate signed agreement exists obligating the supplier to absorb unspecified courier costs months later, particularly where payment timing differed from the proposed PO delivery date.
- Public Transparency
Multiple written responses have been provided to the client’s legal representative.
The assertion that no response was received has already been admitted by the client as inaccurate.
This remains a delivery logistics dispute — not a refusal to supply goods.
All documentation (quotation, purchase order, proof of payment, correspondence) is available for legal review.
We remain willing to facilitate collection immediately.
OMEGA INDUSTRIES's reply12 Feb 2026, 10:20
Official
Official Response – Clarification of Public Misstatements
For the sake of accuracy and public record, the following clarifications are necessary:
- Delivery Date (15 December 2025)
The Purchase Order reflects a proposed delivery date of 15 December 2025.
Full payment was only completed on 23 December 2025.
The same Purchase Order clearly states:
"Goods shall only be supp**** and released once full payment obligation has been fulfilled and reflected in the supplier’s account."
"Goods shall only be supp**** and released once full payment obligation has been fulfilled and reflected in the supplier’s account."
It is therefore factually incorrect to suggest non-delivery by 15 December when payment had not yet been completed by that date.
- Availability of Goods
All completed goods have been made available for collection.
There has never been a refusal to release paid goods.
The dispute relates solely to responsibility for courier costs. - Courier Cost Allegations (R65,000 / R76,420 etc.)
No quotation issued by us reflects courier charges of R65,000, R76,420 or similar amounts as alleged in this post.
These figures do not appear on Quote #7814 and were never issued as additional charges in any written quotation.
If such figures are being referenced, we formally request that the exact document be produced.
- “Delivery – Free delivery – R0.00” Line Item
Quote #7814 reflects a single line item: “Delivery – R0.00.”
It does not specify:
- Address scope
- Transport method
- Geographic range
- Post-payment extended logistics
No separate signed agreement exists obligating the supplier to absorb unspecified courier costs months later, particularly where payment timing differed from the proposed PO delivery date.
- Public Transparency
Multiple written responses have been provided to the client’s legal representative.
The assertion that no response was received has already been admitted by the client as inaccurate.
This remains a delivery logistics dispute — not a refusal to supply goods.
All documentation (quotation, purchase order, proof of payment, correspondence) is available for legal review.
We remain willing to facilitate collection immediately.
OMEGA INDUSTRIES's replyOfficial
12 Feb 2026, 17:28For clarity and for the public record:
All items listed on Quote #7814 were fully manufactured.
All uniforms, jackets, boots and related items have been completed and have been available for collection for an extended period.
The only reason the client does not currently have the goods is because the client has refused to collect them.
At no point have we refused to release completed goods. The products remain available for immediate collection by the client or any courier appointed and paid by the client.
This matter is a dispute regarding courier costs — not non-delivery.
The goods exist.
They are ready.
They can be collected at any time.
We remain willing to conclude this matter immediately upon collection.
All items listed on Quote #7814 were fully manufactured.
All uniforms, jackets, boots and related items have been completed and have been available for collection for an extended period.
The only reason the client does not currently have the goods is because the client has refused to collect them.
At no point have we refused to release completed goods. The products remain available for immediate collection by the client or any courier appointed and paid by the client.
This matter is a dispute regarding courier costs — not non-delivery.
The goods exist.
They are ready.
They can be collected at any time.
We remain willing to conclude this matter immediately upon collection.
OMEGA INDUSTRIES's reply12 Feb 2026, 17:28
Official
For clarity and for the public record:
All items listed on Quote #7814 were fully manufactured.
All uniforms, jackets, boots and related items have been completed and have been available for collection for an extended period.
The only reason the client does not currently have the goods is because the client has refused to collect them.
At no point have we refused to release completed goods. The products remain available for immediate collection by the client or any courier appointed and paid by the client.
This matter is a dispute regarding courier costs — not non-delivery.
The goods exist.
They are ready.
They can be collected at any time.
We remain willing to conclude this matter immediately upon collection.
All items listed on Quote #7814 were fully manufactured.
All uniforms, jackets, boots and related items have been completed and have been available for collection for an extended period.
The only reason the client does not currently have the goods is because the client has refused to collect them.
At no point have we refused to release completed goods. The products remain available for immediate collection by the client or any courier appointed and paid by the client.
This matter is a dispute regarding courier costs — not non-delivery.
The goods exist.
They are ready.
They can be collected at any time.
We remain willing to conclude this matter immediately upon collection.
CVdB
Charnelle Van den Berg's updateReviewer Update
12 Feb 2026, 17:42Quote #7814 states "Delivery: Free delivery - R0.00"
"Delivery" and "collection" are not the same thing.
If Omega intended for goods to be collected at client's cost, the quote should have stated "Collection" not "Delivery."
We are not refusing to collect. ISO Lomlingo is insisting Omega honor the quoted delivery terms.
Goods quoted with "Free delivery" should be delivered, not held for collection at client's expense.
This remains a breach of contract. Once payment is accepted by supplier then terms are set. Under South African common law, a quotation constitutes an offer which, when accepted by payment, creates a binding contract on the terms stated in the quotation.
Once a contract is concluded, neither party may unilaterally vary its terms without the consent of the other party (SA Sentrale Ko-op Graanmaatskappy Bpk v Shifren 1964 (4) SA 760 (A)).
Quote #7814 stated "Delivery: Free delivery - R0.00". Payment was made in accordance with that quotation. The contract was thereby concluded on those terms.
Omega Industries' subsequent attempt to impose courier costs of approximately R8,000 and to require collection at client's expense constitutes an impermissible unilateral variation of the agreed terms.
Furthermore, Section 48(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act requires suppliers to perform services "in the manner and form required by the agreement" - which in this case means delivery at no cost to the consumer.
"Delivery" and "collection" are not the same thing.
If Omega intended for goods to be collected at client's cost, the quote should have stated "Collection" not "Delivery."
We are not refusing to collect. ISO Lomlingo is insisting Omega honor the quoted delivery terms.
Goods quoted with "Free delivery" should be delivered, not held for collection at client's expense.
This remains a breach of contract. Once payment is accepted by supplier then terms are set. Under South African common law, a quotation constitutes an offer which, when accepted by payment, creates a binding contract on the terms stated in the quotation.
Once a contract is concluded, neither party may unilaterally vary its terms without the consent of the other party (SA Sentrale Ko-op Graanmaatskappy Bpk v Shifren 1964 (4) SA 760 (A)).
Quote #7814 stated "Delivery: Free delivery - R0.00". Payment was made in accordance with that quotation. The contract was thereby concluded on those terms.
Omega Industries' subsequent attempt to impose courier costs of approximately R8,000 and to require collection at client's expense constitutes an impermissible unilateral variation of the agreed terms.
Furthermore, Section 48(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act requires suppliers to perform services "in the manner and form required by the agreement" - which in this case means delivery at no cost to the consumer.
CVdB
Charnelle Van den Berg's update12 Feb 2026, 17:42
Reviewer Update
Quote #7814 states "Delivery: Free delivery - R0.00"
"Delivery" and "collection" are not the same thing.
If Omega intended for goods to be collected at client's cost, the quote should have stated "Collection" not "Delivery."
We are not refusing to collect. ISO Lomlingo is insisting Omega honor the quoted delivery terms.
Goods quoted with "Free delivery" should be delivered, not held for collection at client's expense.
This remains a breach of contract. Once payment is accepted by supplier then terms are set. Under South African common law, a quotation constitutes an offer which, when accepted by payment, creates a binding contract on the terms stated in the quotation.
Once a contract is concluded, neither party may unilaterally vary its terms without the consent of the other party (SA Sentrale Ko-op Graanmaatskappy Bpk v Shifren 1964 (4) SA 760 (A)).
Quote #7814 stated "Delivery: Free delivery - R0.00". Payment was made in accordance with that quotation. The contract was thereby concluded on those terms.
Omega Industries' subsequent attempt to impose courier costs of approximately R8,000 and to require collection at client's expense constitutes an impermissible unilateral variation of the agreed terms.
Furthermore, Section 48(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act requires suppliers to perform services "in the manner and form required by the agreement" - which in this case means delivery at no cost to the consumer.
"Delivery" and "collection" are not the same thing.
If Omega intended for goods to be collected at client's cost, the quote should have stated "Collection" not "Delivery."
We are not refusing to collect. ISO Lomlingo is insisting Omega honor the quoted delivery terms.
Goods quoted with "Free delivery" should be delivered, not held for collection at client's expense.
This remains a breach of contract. Once payment is accepted by supplier then terms are set. Under South African common law, a quotation constitutes an offer which, when accepted by payment, creates a binding contract on the terms stated in the quotation.
Once a contract is concluded, neither party may unilaterally vary its terms without the consent of the other party (SA Sentrale Ko-op Graanmaatskappy Bpk v Shifren 1964 (4) SA 760 (A)).
Quote #7814 stated "Delivery: Free delivery - R0.00". Payment was made in accordance with that quotation. The contract was thereby concluded on those terms.
Omega Industries' subsequent attempt to impose courier costs of approximately R8,000 and to require collection at client's expense constitutes an impermissible unilateral variation of the agreed terms.
Furthermore, Section 48(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act requires suppliers to perform services "in the manner and form required by the agreement" - which in this case means delivery at no cost to the consumer.
OMEGA INDUSTRIES's replyOfficial
12 Feb 2026, 18:02For clarity and final record:
- Quote #7814 reflected “Delivery: Free delivery – R0.00.”
No delivery address, geographic scope, delivery method, or delivery deadline linked to payment was specified in the quotation. - The purchase order referenced 15 December 2025 as a delivery date.
Payment was not made by that date.
The first payment was only received on 23 December 2025, with the balance thereafter.
No written acceptance of a guaranteed 15 December delivery date was ever provided by us. - All goods listed on Quote #7814 have been fully manufactured in accordance with the sizing list supp****.
- The goods have been ready and available for collection for an extended period.
- At no point have we refused to release the goods.
The client may collect directly or appoint any third-party courier of their choice.
This matter is a dispute about courier logistics — not non-delivery.
The products exist.
They are completed.
They are available.
They are completed.
They are available.
The only reason the client does not have them is because the client has chosen not to collect.
We remain willing to conclude this matter immediately upon collection.
OMEGA INDUSTRIES's reply12 Feb 2026, 18:02
Official
For clarity and final record:
- Quote #7814 reflected “Delivery: Free delivery – R0.00.”
No delivery address, geographic scope, delivery method, or delivery deadline linked to payment was specified in the quotation. - The purchase order referenced 15 December 2025 as a delivery date.
Payment was not made by that date.
The first payment was only received on 23 December 2025, with the balance thereafter.
No written acceptance of a guaranteed 15 December delivery date was ever provided by us. - All goods listed on Quote #7814 have been fully manufactured in accordance with the sizing list supp****.
- The goods have been ready and available for collection for an extended period.
- At no point have we refused to release the goods.
The client may collect directly or appoint any third-party courier of their choice.
This matter is a dispute about courier logistics — not non-delivery.
The products exist.
They are completed.
They are available.
They are completed.
They are available.
The only reason the client does not have them is because the client has chosen not to collect.
We remain willing to conclude this matter immediately upon collection.
CVdB
Charnelle Van den Berg's updateReviewer Update
12 Feb 2026, 18:21"Goods and/or equipment shall only be supp**** and released once full payment obligation has been fulfilled and reflected in the suppliers account. Delivery must be made to the following address: 65 President Street, Barberton, Mpumalanga, 1300 An inventory list of all goods supp**** must accompany the delivery and a copy must also be sent electronically to: *** Only the following authorised representatives may accept delivery on behalf of ISO Lomlingo:- The supplier is required to contact the Finance Operations Manager on the day of delivery prior to dispatch to confirm readiness and acceptance. No delivery shall be deemed valid unless receipt is signed by one of the authorized persons listed above" Direct quote from PO acted by Omega."
- How did the boost end up in Barberton, if the delivery address was not clear?
- How did Omega create a quote with our address stipulated at the top?
- Shall I also quote the direct Whatsapp message stating "Gelukkig betaal ek die uniform koste vir jul" - which I remind you, was never delivered.
- I reiterate the following:
Quote #7814 states "Delivery: Free delivery - R0.00"
"Delivery" and "collection" are not the same thing.
If Omega intended for goods to be collected at client's cost, the quote should have stated "Collection" not "Delivery."
We are not refusing to collect. ISO Lomlingo is insisting Omega honor the quoted delivery terms.
Goods quoted with "Free delivery" should be delivered, not held for collection at client's expense.
This remains a breach of contract. Once payment is accepted by supplier then terms are set. Under South African common law, a quotation constitutes an offer which, when accepted by payment, creates a binding contract on the terms stated in the quotation.
Once a contract is concluded, neither party may unilaterally vary its terms without the consent of the other party (SA Sentrale Ko-op Graanmaatskappy Bpk v Shifren 1964 (4) SA 760 (A)).
"Delivery" and "collection" are not the same thing.
If Omega intended for goods to be collected at client's cost, the quote should have stated "Collection" not "Delivery."
We are not refusing to collect. ISO Lomlingo is insisting Omega honor the quoted delivery terms.
Goods quoted with "Free delivery" should be delivered, not held for collection at client's expense.
This remains a breach of contract. Once payment is accepted by supplier then terms are set. Under South African common law, a quotation constitutes an offer which, when accepted by payment, creates a binding contract on the terms stated in the quotation.
Once a contract is concluded, neither party may unilaterally vary its terms without the consent of the other party (SA Sentrale Ko-op Graanmaatskappy Bpk v Shifren 1964 (4) SA 760 (A)).
CVdB
Charnelle Van den Berg's update12 Feb 2026, 18:21
Reviewer Update
"Goods and/or equipment shall only be supp**** and released once full payment obligation has been fulfilled and reflected in the suppliers account. Delivery must be made to the following address: 65 President Street, Barberton, Mpumalanga, 1300 An inventory list of all goods supp**** must accompany the delivery and a copy must also be sent electronically to: *** Only the following authorised representatives may accept delivery on behalf of ISO Lomlingo:- The supplier is required to contact the Finance Operations Manager on the day of delivery prior to dispatch to confirm readiness and acceptance. No delivery shall be deemed valid unless receipt is signed by one of the authorized persons listed above" Direct quote from PO acted by Omega."
- How did the boost end up in Barberton, if the delivery address was not clear?
- How did Omega create a quote with our address stipulated at the top?
- Shall I also quote the direct Whatsapp message stating "Gelukkig betaal ek die uniform koste vir jul" - which I remind you, was never delivered.
- I reiterate the following:
Quote #7814 states "Delivery: Free delivery - R0.00"
"Delivery" and "collection" are not the same thing.
If Omega intended for goods to be collected at client's cost, the quote should have stated "Collection" not "Delivery."
We are not refusing to collect. ISO Lomlingo is insisting Omega honor the quoted delivery terms.
Goods quoted with "Free delivery" should be delivered, not held for collection at client's expense.
This remains a breach of contract. Once payment is accepted by supplier then terms are set. Under South African common law, a quotation constitutes an offer which, when accepted by payment, creates a binding contract on the terms stated in the quotation.
Once a contract is concluded, neither party may unilaterally vary its terms without the consent of the other party (SA Sentrale Ko-op Graanmaatskappy Bpk v Shifren 1964 (4) SA 760 (A)).
"Delivery" and "collection" are not the same thing.
If Omega intended for goods to be collected at client's cost, the quote should have stated "Collection" not "Delivery."
We are not refusing to collect. ISO Lomlingo is insisting Omega honor the quoted delivery terms.
Goods quoted with "Free delivery" should be delivered, not held for collection at client's expense.
This remains a breach of contract. Once payment is accepted by supplier then terms are set. Under South African common law, a quotation constitutes an offer which, when accepted by payment, creates a binding contract on the terms stated in the quotation.
Once a contract is concluded, neither party may unilaterally vary its terms without the consent of the other party (SA Sentrale Ko-op Graanmaatskappy Bpk v Shifren 1964 (4) SA 760 (A)).
OMEGA INDUSTRIES's replyOfficial
12 Feb 2026, 18:44Omega Industries’ Final Response
For clarity to the public:
All uniforms and boots listed under Quote #7814 have been fully manufactured and are ready for release.
The goods have been available for collection for an extended period.
At no stage have we refused to release the goods.
The only outstanding issue between the parties is a disagreement regarding delivery logistics. This is a civil contract interpretation dispute not a failure to manufacture, not non-performance, and not withholding of goods.
The client has been informed repeatedly that:
• The goods are complete.
• The goods are available.
• Collection may be arranged at any time.
• The client may appoint any courier of their choice to collect.
No goods are being “withheld”. No additional product charges have been imposed. No refusal to release has occurred.
The dispute relates solely to whether physical delivery must be performed by the supplier or whether collection is required.
That issue is currently being handled through formal channels.
All documentation is available for review by legal representatives or any competent authority.
We will not engage in further public back-and-forth on this platform. The goods remain available for immediate release.
For clarity to the public:
All uniforms and boots listed under Quote #7814 have been fully manufactured and are ready for release.
The goods have been available for collection for an extended period.
At no stage have we refused to release the goods.
The only outstanding issue between the parties is a disagreement regarding delivery logistics. This is a civil contract interpretation dispute not a failure to manufacture, not non-performance, and not withholding of goods.
The client has been informed repeatedly that:
• The goods are complete.
• The goods are available.
• Collection may be arranged at any time.
• The client may appoint any courier of their choice to collect.
No goods are being “withheld”. No additional product charges have been imposed. No refusal to release has occurred.
The dispute relates solely to whether physical delivery must be performed by the supplier or whether collection is required.
That issue is currently being handled through formal channels.
All documentation is available for review by legal representatives or any competent authority.
We will not engage in further public back-and-forth on this platform. The goods remain available for immediate release.
OMEGA INDUSTRIES's reply12 Feb 2026, 18:44
Official
Omega Industries’ Final Response
For clarity to the public:
All uniforms and boots listed under Quote #7814 have been fully manufactured and are ready for release.
The goods have been available for collection for an extended period.
At no stage have we refused to release the goods.
The only outstanding issue between the parties is a disagreement regarding delivery logistics. This is a civil contract interpretation dispute not a failure to manufacture, not non-performance, and not withholding of goods.
The client has been informed repeatedly that:
• The goods are complete.
• The goods are available.
• Collection may be arranged at any time.
• The client may appoint any courier of their choice to collect.
No goods are being “withheld”. No additional product charges have been imposed. No refusal to release has occurred.
The dispute relates solely to whether physical delivery must be performed by the supplier or whether collection is required.
That issue is currently being handled through formal channels.
All documentation is available for review by legal representatives or any competent authority.
We will not engage in further public back-and-forth on this platform. The goods remain available for immediate release.
For clarity to the public:
All uniforms and boots listed under Quote #7814 have been fully manufactured and are ready for release.
The goods have been available for collection for an extended period.
At no stage have we refused to release the goods.
The only outstanding issue between the parties is a disagreement regarding delivery logistics. This is a civil contract interpretation dispute not a failure to manufacture, not non-performance, and not withholding of goods.
The client has been informed repeatedly that:
• The goods are complete.
• The goods are available.
• Collection may be arranged at any time.
• The client may appoint any courier of their choice to collect.
No goods are being “withheld”. No additional product charges have been imposed. No refusal to release has occurred.
The dispute relates solely to whether physical delivery must be performed by the supplier or whether collection is required.
That issue is currently being handled through formal channels.
All documentation is available for review by legal representatives or any competent authority.
We will not engage in further public back-and-forth on this platform. The goods remain available for immediate release.
CVdB
Charnelle Van den Berg's updateReviewer Update
12 Feb 2026, 18:51Goods and/or equipment shall only be supp**** and released once full payment obligation has been fulfilled and reflected in the suppliers account. Delivery must be made to the following address: 65 President Street, Barberton, Mpumalanga, 1300 An inventory list of all goods supp**** must accompany the delivery and a copy must also be sent electronically to: *********** Only the following authorised representatives may accept delivery on behalf of ISO Lomlingo:- The supplier is required to contact the Finance Operations Manager on the day of delivery prior to dispatch to confirm readiness and acceptance. No delivery shall be deemed valid unless receipt is signed by one of the authorized persons listed above" Direct quote from PO acted by Omega."
How did the boost end up in Barberton, if the delivery address was not clear?
How did Omega create a quote with our address stipulated at the top?
Shall I also quote the direct Whatsapp message stating "Gelukkig betaal ek die uniform koste vir jul" - which I remind you, was never delivered.
I reiterate the following:
Quote #7814 states "Delivery: Free delivery - R0.00"
"Delivery" and "collection" are not the same thing.
If Omega intended for goods to be collected at client's cost, the quote should have stated "Collection" not "Delivery."
We are not refusing to collect. ISO Lomlingo is insisting Omega honor the quoted delivery terms.
Goods quoted with "Free delivery" should be delivered, not held for collection at client's expense.
This remains a breach of contract. Once payment is accepted by supplier then terms are set. Under South African common law, a quotation constitutes an offer which, when accepted by payment, creates a binding contract on the terms stated in the quotation.
Once a contract is concluded, neither party may unilaterally vary its terms without the consent of the other party (SA Sentrale Ko-op Graanmaatskappy Bpk v Shifren 1964 (4) SA 760 (A)).
How did the boost end up in Barberton, if the delivery address was not clear?
How did Omega create a quote with our address stipulated at the top?
Shall I also quote the direct Whatsapp message stating "Gelukkig betaal ek die uniform koste vir jul" - which I remind you, was never delivered.
I reiterate the following:
Quote #7814 states "Delivery: Free delivery - R0.00"
"Delivery" and "collection" are not the same thing.
If Omega intended for goods to be collected at client's cost, the quote should have stated "Collection" not "Delivery."
We are not refusing to collect. ISO Lomlingo is insisting Omega honor the quoted delivery terms.
Goods quoted with "Free delivery" should be delivered, not held for collection at client's expense.
This remains a breach of contract. Once payment is accepted by supplier then terms are set. Under South African common law, a quotation constitutes an offer which, when accepted by payment, creates a binding contract on the terms stated in the quotation.
Once a contract is concluded, neither party may unilaterally vary its terms without the consent of the other party (SA Sentrale Ko-op Graanmaatskappy Bpk v Shifren 1964 (4) SA 760 (A)).
CVdB
Charnelle Van den Berg's update12 Feb 2026, 18:51
Reviewer Update
Goods and/or equipment shall only be supp**** and released once full payment obligation has been fulfilled and reflected in the suppliers account. Delivery must be made to the following address: 65 President Street, Barberton, Mpumalanga, 1300 An inventory list of all goods supp**** must accompany the delivery and a copy must also be sent electronically to: *********** Only the following authorised representatives may accept delivery on behalf of ISO Lomlingo:- The supplier is required to contact the Finance Operations Manager on the day of delivery prior to dispatch to confirm readiness and acceptance. No delivery shall be deemed valid unless receipt is signed by one of the authorized persons listed above" Direct quote from PO acted by Omega."
How did the boost end up in Barberton, if the delivery address was not clear?
How did Omega create a quote with our address stipulated at the top?
Shall I also quote the direct Whatsapp message stating "Gelukkig betaal ek die uniform koste vir jul" - which I remind you, was never delivered.
I reiterate the following:
Quote #7814 states "Delivery: Free delivery - R0.00"
"Delivery" and "collection" are not the same thing.
If Omega intended for goods to be collected at client's cost, the quote should have stated "Collection" not "Delivery."
We are not refusing to collect. ISO Lomlingo is insisting Omega honor the quoted delivery terms.
Goods quoted with "Free delivery" should be delivered, not held for collection at client's expense.
This remains a breach of contract. Once payment is accepted by supplier then terms are set. Under South African common law, a quotation constitutes an offer which, when accepted by payment, creates a binding contract on the terms stated in the quotation.
Once a contract is concluded, neither party may unilaterally vary its terms without the consent of the other party (SA Sentrale Ko-op Graanmaatskappy Bpk v Shifren 1964 (4) SA 760 (A)).
How did the boost end up in Barberton, if the delivery address was not clear?
How did Omega create a quote with our address stipulated at the top?
Shall I also quote the direct Whatsapp message stating "Gelukkig betaal ek die uniform koste vir jul" - which I remind you, was never delivered.
I reiterate the following:
Quote #7814 states "Delivery: Free delivery - R0.00"
"Delivery" and "collection" are not the same thing.
If Omega intended for goods to be collected at client's cost, the quote should have stated "Collection" not "Delivery."
We are not refusing to collect. ISO Lomlingo is insisting Omega honor the quoted delivery terms.
Goods quoted with "Free delivery" should be delivered, not held for collection at client's expense.
This remains a breach of contract. Once payment is accepted by supplier then terms are set. Under South African common law, a quotation constitutes an offer which, when accepted by payment, creates a binding contract on the terms stated in the quotation.
Once a contract is concluded, neither party may unilaterally vary its terms without the consent of the other party (SA Sentrale Ko-op Graanmaatskappy Bpk v Shifren 1964 (4) SA 760 (A)).
OMEGA INDUSTRIES's replyOfficial
12 Feb 2026, 18:56Omega Industries’ Final Response
For clarity to the public:
All uniforms and boots listed under Quote #7814 have been fully manufactured and are ready for release.
The goods have been available for collection for an extended period.
At no stage have we refused to release the goods.
The only outstanding issue between the parties is a disagreement regarding delivery logistics. This is a civil contract interpretation dispute — not a failure to manufacture, not non-performance, and not withholding of goods.
The client has been informed repeatedly that:
• The goods are complete.
• The goods are available.
• Collection may be arranged at any time.
• The client may appoint any courier of their choice to collect.
No goods are being “withheld”. No additional product charges have been imposed. No refusal to release has occurred.
The dispute relates solely to whether physical delivery must be performed by the supplier or whether collection is required.
That issue is currently being handled through formal channels.
All documentation is available for review by legal representatives or any competent authority.
We will not engage in further public back-and-forth on this platform. The goods remain available for immediate release.
For clarity to the public:
All uniforms and boots listed under Quote #7814 have been fully manufactured and are ready for release.
The goods have been available for collection for an extended period.
At no stage have we refused to release the goods.
The only outstanding issue between the parties is a disagreement regarding delivery logistics. This is a civil contract interpretation dispute — not a failure to manufacture, not non-performance, and not withholding of goods.
The client has been informed repeatedly that:
• The goods are complete.
• The goods are available.
• Collection may be arranged at any time.
• The client may appoint any courier of their choice to collect.
No goods are being “withheld”. No additional product charges have been imposed. No refusal to release has occurred.
The dispute relates solely to whether physical delivery must be performed by the supplier or whether collection is required.
That issue is currently being handled through formal channels.
All documentation is available for review by legal representatives or any competent authority.
We will not engage in further public back-and-forth on this platform. The goods remain available for immediate release.
OMEGA INDUSTRIES's reply12 Feb 2026, 18:56
Official
Omega Industries’ Final Response
For clarity to the public:
All uniforms and boots listed under Quote #7814 have been fully manufactured and are ready for release.
The goods have been available for collection for an extended period.
At no stage have we refused to release the goods.
The only outstanding issue between the parties is a disagreement regarding delivery logistics. This is a civil contract interpretation dispute — not a failure to manufacture, not non-performance, and not withholding of goods.
The client has been informed repeatedly that:
• The goods are complete.
• The goods are available.
• Collection may be arranged at any time.
• The client may appoint any courier of their choice to collect.
No goods are being “withheld”. No additional product charges have been imposed. No refusal to release has occurred.
The dispute relates solely to whether physical delivery must be performed by the supplier or whether collection is required.
That issue is currently being handled through formal channels.
All documentation is available for review by legal representatives or any competent authority.
We will not engage in further public back-and-forth on this platform. The goods remain available for immediate release.
For clarity to the public:
All uniforms and boots listed under Quote #7814 have been fully manufactured and are ready for release.
The goods have been available for collection for an extended period.
At no stage have we refused to release the goods.
The only outstanding issue between the parties is a disagreement regarding delivery logistics. This is a civil contract interpretation dispute — not a failure to manufacture, not non-performance, and not withholding of goods.
The client has been informed repeatedly that:
• The goods are complete.
• The goods are available.
• Collection may be arranged at any time.
• The client may appoint any courier of their choice to collect.
No goods are being “withheld”. No additional product charges have been imposed. No refusal to release has occurred.
The dispute relates solely to whether physical delivery must be performed by the supplier or whether collection is required.
That issue is currently being handled through formal channels.
All documentation is available for review by legal representatives or any competent authority.
We will not engage in further public back-and-forth on this platform. The goods remain available for immediate release.
CVdB
Charnelle Van den Berg's updateReviewer Update
12 Feb 2026, 18:59Quote #7814 states "Delivery: Free delivery - R0.00"
Payment of R284,002.00 was made in accordance with that quotation.
Under South African contract law, acceptance of payment on quoted terms creates a binding contract. The supplier must either:
1. Perform delivery as quoted (R0.00 zFREE delivery cost), or
2. Refund payment in full if unable to perform
Section 48(1) of the Consumer Protection Act provides: "Every consumer has a right to timely performance and completion of services, and timely notice of any unavoidable delay in performance."
Post-payment modification of delivery terms without consumer consent constitutes breach of this statutory obligation.
51 days have elapsed since payment. No delivery has occurred.
Payment of R284,002.00 was made in accordance with that quotation.
Under South African contract law, acceptance of payment on quoted terms creates a binding contract. The supplier must either:
1. Perform delivery as quoted (R0.00 zFREE delivery cost), or
2. Refund payment in full if unable to perform
Section 48(1) of the Consumer Protection Act provides: "Every consumer has a right to timely performance and completion of services, and timely notice of any unavoidable delay in performance."
Post-payment modification of delivery terms without consumer consent constitutes breach of this statutory obligation.
51 days have elapsed since payment. No delivery has occurred.
CVdB
Charnelle Van den Berg's update12 Feb 2026, 18:59
Reviewer Update
Quote #7814 states "Delivery: Free delivery - R0.00"
Payment of R284,002.00 was made in accordance with that quotation.
Under South African contract law, acceptance of payment on quoted terms creates a binding contract. The supplier must either:
1. Perform delivery as quoted (R0.00 zFREE delivery cost), or
2. Refund payment in full if unable to perform
Section 48(1) of the Consumer Protection Act provides: "Every consumer has a right to timely performance and completion of services, and timely notice of any unavoidable delay in performance."
Post-payment modification of delivery terms without consumer consent constitutes breach of this statutory obligation.
51 days have elapsed since payment. No delivery has occurred.
Payment of R284,002.00 was made in accordance with that quotation.
Under South African contract law, acceptance of payment on quoted terms creates a binding contract. The supplier must either:
1. Perform delivery as quoted (R0.00 zFREE delivery cost), or
2. Refund payment in full if unable to perform
Section 48(1) of the Consumer Protection Act provides: "Every consumer has a right to timely performance and completion of services, and timely notice of any unavoidable delay in performance."
Post-payment modification of delivery terms without consumer consent constitutes breach of this statutory obligation.
51 days have elapsed since payment. No delivery has occurred.
CVdB
Charnelle Van den Berg's updateReviewer Update
12 Feb 2026, 19:00Quote #7814 states "Delivery: Free delivery - R0.00"
Payment of R284,002.00 was made in accordance with that quotation.
Under South African contract law, acceptance of payment on quoted terms creates a binding contract. The supplier must either:
1. Perform delivery as quoted (R0.00 zFREE delivery cost), or
2. Refund payment in full if unable to perform
Section 48(1) of the Consumer Protection Act provides: "Every consumer has a right to timely performance and completion of services, and timely notice of any unavoidable delay in performance."
Post-payment modification of delivery terms without consumer consent constitutes breach of this statutory obligation.
51 days have elapsed since payment. No delivery has occurred.
Payment of R284,002.00 was made in accordance with that quotation.
Under South African contract law, acceptance of payment on quoted terms creates a binding contract. The supplier must either:
1. Perform delivery as quoted (R0.00 zFREE delivery cost), or
2. Refund payment in full if unable to perform
Section 48(1) of the Consumer Protection Act provides: "Every consumer has a right to timely performance and completion of services, and timely notice of any unavoidable delay in performance."
Post-payment modification of delivery terms without consumer consent constitutes breach of this statutory obligation.
51 days have elapsed since payment. No delivery has occurred.
CVdB
Charnelle Van den Berg's update12 Feb 2026, 19:00
Reviewer Update
Quote #7814 states "Delivery: Free delivery - R0.00"
Payment of R284,002.00 was made in accordance with that quotation.
Under South African contract law, acceptance of payment on quoted terms creates a binding contract. The supplier must either:
1. Perform delivery as quoted (R0.00 zFREE delivery cost), or
2. Refund payment in full if unable to perform
Section 48(1) of the Consumer Protection Act provides: "Every consumer has a right to timely performance and completion of services, and timely notice of any unavoidable delay in performance."
Post-payment modification of delivery terms without consumer consent constitutes breach of this statutory obligation.
51 days have elapsed since payment. No delivery has occurred.
Payment of R284,002.00 was made in accordance with that quotation.
Under South African contract law, acceptance of payment on quoted terms creates a binding contract. The supplier must either:
1. Perform delivery as quoted (R0.00 zFREE delivery cost), or
2. Refund payment in full if unable to perform
Section 48(1) of the Consumer Protection Act provides: "Every consumer has a right to timely performance and completion of services, and timely notice of any unavoidable delay in performance."
Post-payment modification of delivery terms without consumer consent constitutes breach of this statutory obligation.
51 days have elapsed since payment. No delivery has occurred.
CVdB
Charnelle Van den Berg's updateReviewer Update
13 Feb 2026, 08:05As of 13 February 2026, the goods paid for in full (R284,002) have not been delivered as contracted. The original quote specified free delivery to our address. We are not obligated to collect goods that were contracted for delivery. Full refund is due.
CVdB
Charnelle Van den Berg's update13 Feb 2026, 08:05
Reviewer Update
As of 13 February 2026, the goods paid for in full (R284,002) have not been delivered as contracted. The original quote specified free delivery to our address. We are not obligated to collect goods that were contracted for delivery. Full refund is due.
OMEGA INDUSTRIES's replyOfficial
13 Feb 2026, 08:18Final Clarification – Factual Position
As at 13 February 2026, the position remains as follows:
Payment Timing
The Purchase Order referenced a proposed delivery date of 15 December 2025.
Full payment was not completed by 15 December 2025.
The first payment was received only on 23 December 2025, with final payment completed thereafter.
It is legally inconsistent to rely on a 15 December delivery date when full payment had not yet been effected by that date.
Outstanding Size Information
To date, we have still not received all outstanding sizing information required to complete certain items.
Completion and dispatch of a full uniform order is not practically possible where sizing details remain incomplete.
This has been communicated previously.
Manufactured Goods
All completed goods have been manufactured and are available.
They are not “non-existent.” They are physically present and ready.
Collection vs Delivery Dispute
The dispute relates solely to logistics interpretation not to existence of goods and not to refusal to supply.
The client has refused collection and insists on delivery under their interpretation of “free delivery.”
No Refusal to Perform
There has been no refusal to perform.
Goods are available.
Collection has been invited.
Refund Demand
A refund is being demanded while goods manufactured to specification are available and awaiting collection.
That is not a case of “no performance.” It is a disagreement over logistics interpretation.
This matter is already documented extensively and available for legal review.
We consider the goods manufactured and available. The client may collect at any time upon coordination.
Further public repetition of the same points does not change the factual position.
As at 13 February 2026, the position remains as follows:
Payment Timing
The Purchase Order referenced a proposed delivery date of 15 December 2025.
Full payment was not completed by 15 December 2025.
The first payment was received only on 23 December 2025, with final payment completed thereafter.
It is legally inconsistent to rely on a 15 December delivery date when full payment had not yet been effected by that date.
Outstanding Size Information
To date, we have still not received all outstanding sizing information required to complete certain items.
Completion and dispatch of a full uniform order is not practically possible where sizing details remain incomplete.
This has been communicated previously.
Manufactured Goods
All completed goods have been manufactured and are available.
They are not “non-existent.” They are physically present and ready.
Collection vs Delivery Dispute
The dispute relates solely to logistics interpretation not to existence of goods and not to refusal to supply.
The client has refused collection and insists on delivery under their interpretation of “free delivery.”
No Refusal to Perform
There has been no refusal to perform.
Goods are available.
Collection has been invited.
Refund Demand
A refund is being demanded while goods manufactured to specification are available and awaiting collection.
That is not a case of “no performance.” It is a disagreement over logistics interpretation.
This matter is already documented extensively and available for legal review.
We consider the goods manufactured and available. The client may collect at any time upon coordination.
Further public repetition of the same points does not change the factual position.
OMEGA INDUSTRIES's reply13 Feb 2026, 08:18
Official
Final Clarification – Factual Position
As at 13 February 2026, the position remains as follows:
Payment Timing
The Purchase Order referenced a proposed delivery date of 15 December 2025.
Full payment was not completed by 15 December 2025.
The first payment was received only on 23 December 2025, with final payment completed thereafter.
It is legally inconsistent to rely on a 15 December delivery date when full payment had not yet been effected by that date.
Outstanding Size Information
To date, we have still not received all outstanding sizing information required to complete certain items.
Completion and dispatch of a full uniform order is not practically possible where sizing details remain incomplete.
This has been communicated previously.
Manufactured Goods
All completed goods have been manufactured and are available.
They are not “non-existent.” They are physically present and ready.
Collection vs Delivery Dispute
The dispute relates solely to logistics interpretation not to existence of goods and not to refusal to supply.
The client has refused collection and insists on delivery under their interpretation of “free delivery.”
No Refusal to Perform
There has been no refusal to perform.
Goods are available.
Collection has been invited.
Refund Demand
A refund is being demanded while goods manufactured to specification are available and awaiting collection.
That is not a case of “no performance.” It is a disagreement over logistics interpretation.
This matter is already documented extensively and available for legal review.
We consider the goods manufactured and available. The client may collect at any time upon coordination.
Further public repetition of the same points does not change the factual position.
As at 13 February 2026, the position remains as follows:
Payment Timing
The Purchase Order referenced a proposed delivery date of 15 December 2025.
Full payment was not completed by 15 December 2025.
The first payment was received only on 23 December 2025, with final payment completed thereafter.
It is legally inconsistent to rely on a 15 December delivery date when full payment had not yet been effected by that date.
Outstanding Size Information
To date, we have still not received all outstanding sizing information required to complete certain items.
Completion and dispatch of a full uniform order is not practically possible where sizing details remain incomplete.
This has been communicated previously.
Manufactured Goods
All completed goods have been manufactured and are available.
They are not “non-existent.” They are physically present and ready.
Collection vs Delivery Dispute
The dispute relates solely to logistics interpretation not to existence of goods and not to refusal to supply.
The client has refused collection and insists on delivery under their interpretation of “free delivery.”
No Refusal to Perform
There has been no refusal to perform.
Goods are available.
Collection has been invited.
Refund Demand
A refund is being demanded while goods manufactured to specification are available and awaiting collection.
That is not a case of “no performance.” It is a disagreement over logistics interpretation.
This matter is already documented extensively and available for legal review.
We consider the goods manufactured and available. The client may collect at any time upon coordination.
Further public repetition of the same points does not change the factual position.
CVdB
Charnelle Van den Berg's updateReviewer Update
13 Feb 2026, 08:51Omega's Contradictory Position:
Omega states "we have still not received all outstanding sizing information" and that "completion and dispatch of a full uniform order is not practically possible where sizing details remain incomplete."
Yet simultaneously claims "All completed goods have been manufactured and are available" and "Goods are available. Collection has been invited."
Which is it? Are the goods incomplete due to missing sizing, or are they manufactured and ready?
Sizing Information:
All sizing requirements were provided to Omega via email and WhatsApp. I have complete documented proof of this correspondence, verified by Commissioner of Oaths as true and valid.
Ownership and Refund:
Omega's own quote states: "ALL GOODS REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF Omega Industries (PTY) LTD UNTIL PAID FOR IN FULL."
Payment was completed in full on 23 December 2025. If goods are complete as claimed, ownership has transferred to us and delivery is required per contract. If goods are incomplete as also claimed, Omega has failed to fulfill the contract and refund is due.
The goods are not in my possession and ownership has not transferred through delivery as contracted. Therefore refund is valid.
Delivery Terms:
The quote explicitly states "Delivery: Free delivery - R0.00". The Purchase Order specified delivery to 65 President Street, Barberton on 15 December 2025.
Omega dispatched boots to The Courier Guy hub in Barberton under this free delivery agreement. Only after dispatch did Omega inform The Courier Guy that the client would be liable for courier fees - contradicting the original quote.
Current Position:
As of 13 February 2026, goods paid for in full (R284,002) have not been delivered as contracted. We are not obligated to collect goods that were contracted for delivery, nor to pay courier fees that contradict the written quote.
Full refund remains due. All correspondence and evidence has been provided to our legal representatives.
This matter has now been escalated to the Ombudsman for Banking Services and the National Consumer Commission of South Africa.
This is no longer merely a dispute over contractual terms - it has evolved into a matter of business conduct requiring regulatory oversight. The pattern of contradictory statements, unilateral changes to agreed terms after payment, and strategic repositioning to avoid both delivery and refund obligations demonstrates conduct that falls within the mandate of consumer protection authorities.
When a supplier takes full payment, fails to deliver goods as contracted, provides contradictory explanations for non-delivery, and simultaneously refuses refund while holding goods under disputed terms, this constitutes a business practice concern that extends beyond individual contract enforcement.
Regulatory bodies exist precisely to address situations where suppliers engage in conduct that, if left unchecked, poses risk to other businesses and consumers in the marketplace.
CVdB
Charnelle Van den Berg's update13 Feb 2026, 08:51
Reviewer Update
Omega's Contradictory Position:
Omega states "we have still not received all outstanding sizing information" and that "completion and dispatch of a full uniform order is not practically possible where sizing details remain incomplete."
Yet simultaneously claims "All completed goods have been manufactured and are available" and "Goods are available. Collection has been invited."
Which is it? Are the goods incomplete due to missing sizing, or are they manufactured and ready?
Sizing Information:
All sizing requirements were provided to Omega via email and WhatsApp. I have complete documented proof of this correspondence, verified by Commissioner of Oaths as true and valid.
Ownership and Refund:
Omega's own quote states: "ALL GOODS REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF Omega Industries (PTY) LTD UNTIL PAID FOR IN FULL."
Payment was completed in full on 23 December 2025. If goods are complete as claimed, ownership has transferred to us and delivery is required per contract. If goods are incomplete as also claimed, Omega has failed to fulfill the contract and refund is due.
The goods are not in my possession and ownership has not transferred through delivery as contracted. Therefore refund is valid.
Delivery Terms:
The quote explicitly states "Delivery: Free delivery - R0.00". The Purchase Order specified delivery to 65 President Street, Barberton on 15 December 2025.
Omega dispatched boots to The Courier Guy hub in Barberton under this free delivery agreement. Only after dispatch did Omega inform The Courier Guy that the client would be liable for courier fees - contradicting the original quote.
Current Position:
As of 13 February 2026, goods paid for in full (R284,002) have not been delivered as contracted. We are not obligated to collect goods that were contracted for delivery, nor to pay courier fees that contradict the written quote.
Full refund remains due. All correspondence and evidence has been provided to our legal representatives.
This matter has now been escalated to the Ombudsman for Banking Services and the National Consumer Commission of South Africa.
This is no longer merely a dispute over contractual terms - it has evolved into a matter of business conduct requiring regulatory oversight. The pattern of contradictory statements, unilateral changes to agreed terms after payment, and strategic repositioning to avoid both delivery and refund obligations demonstrates conduct that falls within the mandate of consumer protection authorities.
When a supplier takes full payment, fails to deliver goods as contracted, provides contradictory explanations for non-delivery, and simultaneously refuses refund while holding goods under disputed terms, this constitutes a business practice concern that extends beyond individual contract enforcement.
Regulatory bodies exist precisely to address situations where suppliers engage in conduct that, if left unchecked, poses risk to other businesses and consumers in the marketplace.
OMEGA INDUSTRIES's replyOfficial
13 Feb 2026, 09:28Omega Industries Position – Clarification of Facts
For the sake of accuracy and public clarity, the following is confirmed:
Payment Timing
Full payment was completed on 23 December 2025. Repeated references to 15 December as a contractual delivery date ignore the fact that payment had not been completed by that date. Where delivery is conditional upon full payment being reflected, performance cannot precede payment.
Manufacturing Status
All items for which complete sizing and specification were provided have been manufactured and are available.
Outstanding sizing information prevents final completion of certain items. This is not contradictory; it reflects standard production reality. Completion of an order cannot occur where required measurements remain incomplete.
Ownership Clause
The quotation states goods remain property of the supplier until paid in full. Payment was received on 23 December. Ownership transfer does not automatically determine delivery cost allocation or override logistical arrangements discussed between the parties.
Delivery vs Collection
The quotation reflects “Delivery: Free delivery – R0.00.”
There is no written agreement where Omega agreed to absorb unlimited third-party courier costs months after quotation expiry. Goods remain available and collection has repeatedly been invited.
Courier Allegation
The suggestion that goods were dispatched under a “free delivery agreement” and then terms were changed is incorrect. No such agreement exists in writing. Goods remain available and have not been withheld for improper purposes.
Regulatory Escalation
Omega will cooperate fully with any regulatory or legal process. All documentation, correspondence and production records are preserved and available for formal review.
This matter remains a contractual interpretation dispute regarding delivery logistics. It does not change the core fact: the manufactured goods are available.
Omega remains willing to resolve the matter formally through appropriate legal channels rather than ongoing public commentary.
For the sake of accuracy and public clarity, the following is confirmed:
Payment Timing
Full payment was completed on 23 December 2025. Repeated references to 15 December as a contractual delivery date ignore the fact that payment had not been completed by that date. Where delivery is conditional upon full payment being reflected, performance cannot precede payment.
Manufacturing Status
All items for which complete sizing and specification were provided have been manufactured and are available.
Outstanding sizing information prevents final completion of certain items. This is not contradictory; it reflects standard production reality. Completion of an order cannot occur where required measurements remain incomplete.
Ownership Clause
The quotation states goods remain property of the supplier until paid in full. Payment was received on 23 December. Ownership transfer does not automatically determine delivery cost allocation or override logistical arrangements discussed between the parties.
Delivery vs Collection
The quotation reflects “Delivery: Free delivery – R0.00.”
There is no written agreement where Omega agreed to absorb unlimited third-party courier costs months after quotation expiry. Goods remain available and collection has repeatedly been invited.
Courier Allegation
The suggestion that goods were dispatched under a “free delivery agreement” and then terms were changed is incorrect. No such agreement exists in writing. Goods remain available and have not been withheld for improper purposes.
Regulatory Escalation
Omega will cooperate fully with any regulatory or legal process. All documentation, correspondence and production records are preserved and available for formal review.
This matter remains a contractual interpretation dispute regarding delivery logistics. It does not change the core fact: the manufactured goods are available.
Omega remains willing to resolve the matter formally through appropriate legal channels rather than ongoing public commentary.
OMEGA INDUSTRIES's reply13 Feb 2026, 09:28
Official
Omega Industries Position – Clarification of Facts
For the sake of accuracy and public clarity, the following is confirmed:
Payment Timing
Full payment was completed on 23 December 2025. Repeated references to 15 December as a contractual delivery date ignore the fact that payment had not been completed by that date. Where delivery is conditional upon full payment being reflected, performance cannot precede payment.
Manufacturing Status
All items for which complete sizing and specification were provided have been manufactured and are available.
Outstanding sizing information prevents final completion of certain items. This is not contradictory; it reflects standard production reality. Completion of an order cannot occur where required measurements remain incomplete.
Ownership Clause
The quotation states goods remain property of the supplier until paid in full. Payment was received on 23 December. Ownership transfer does not automatically determine delivery cost allocation or override logistical arrangements discussed between the parties.
Delivery vs Collection
The quotation reflects “Delivery: Free delivery – R0.00.”
There is no written agreement where Omega agreed to absorb unlimited third-party courier costs months after quotation expiry. Goods remain available and collection has repeatedly been invited.
Courier Allegation
The suggestion that goods were dispatched under a “free delivery agreement” and then terms were changed is incorrect. No such agreement exists in writing. Goods remain available and have not been withheld for improper purposes.
Regulatory Escalation
Omega will cooperate fully with any regulatory or legal process. All documentation, correspondence and production records are preserved and available for formal review.
This matter remains a contractual interpretation dispute regarding delivery logistics. It does not change the core fact: the manufactured goods are available.
Omega remains willing to resolve the matter formally through appropriate legal channels rather than ongoing public commentary.
For the sake of accuracy and public clarity, the following is confirmed:
Payment Timing
Full payment was completed on 23 December 2025. Repeated references to 15 December as a contractual delivery date ignore the fact that payment had not been completed by that date. Where delivery is conditional upon full payment being reflected, performance cannot precede payment.
Manufacturing Status
All items for which complete sizing and specification were provided have been manufactured and are available.
Outstanding sizing information prevents final completion of certain items. This is not contradictory; it reflects standard production reality. Completion of an order cannot occur where required measurements remain incomplete.
Ownership Clause
The quotation states goods remain property of the supplier until paid in full. Payment was received on 23 December. Ownership transfer does not automatically determine delivery cost allocation or override logistical arrangements discussed between the parties.
Delivery vs Collection
The quotation reflects “Delivery: Free delivery – R0.00.”
There is no written agreement where Omega agreed to absorb unlimited third-party courier costs months after quotation expiry. Goods remain available and collection has repeatedly been invited.
Courier Allegation
The suggestion that goods were dispatched under a “free delivery agreement” and then terms were changed is incorrect. No such agreement exists in writing. Goods remain available and have not been withheld for improper purposes.
Regulatory Escalation
Omega will cooperate fully with any regulatory or legal process. All documentation, correspondence and production records are preserved and available for formal review.
This matter remains a contractual interpretation dispute regarding delivery logistics. It does not change the core fact: the manufactured goods are available.
Omega remains willing to resolve the matter formally through appropriate legal channels rather than ongoing public commentary.
CVdB
Charnelle Van den Berg's updateReviewer Update
13 Feb 2026, 09:44Payment Timing and Delivery Date:
Omega states that "repeated references to 15 December as a delivery deadline are inaccurate" because payment was not completed by that date.
The Purchase Order suspensive condition states: "Goods shall only be supp**** once full payment is fulfilled."
This condition governs when supply occurs - not when payment must occur. Payment was completed in full on 23 December 2025, thereby fulfilling the suspensive condition and triggering Omega's obligation to supply.
The December 15 delivery date represents the contracted delivery timeline. Payment completion on December 23 fulfilled the condition for supply. Omega has now had seven weeks since payment to deliver goods as contracted.
Manufacturing Status - Contradictory Claims:
Omega states: "All items for which complete sizing and specification were provided have been manufactured and are available."
Omega also states: "Outstanding sizing information prevents final completion of certain items."
Which items are complete and which are incomplete? This contradiction makes it impossible to determine what Omega is actually claiming.
All sizing requirements were provided via email and WhatsApp. This correspondence has been verified by Commissioner of Oaths as true and valid. If Omega claims sizing is incomplete, they must specify which items and provide evidence that sizing requests were sent but not answered.
Free Delivery - Written Agreement:
Omega states: "There is no written agreement where Omega agreed to absorb unlimited third-party courier costs beyond what was factored into pricing."
Quote #7814 IS the written agreement. It explicitly states:
- "Delivery: Free delivery"
- "Price: R0.00"
- "Amount: R0.00"
Purchase Order PO*** specifies:
- "Delivery to: 65 President Street, Barberton"
- "Delivery date: 15 December 2025"
These are not ambiguous terms requiring interpretation. "Free delivery" to a specified address means Omega bears delivery costs. There is no carve-out for "third-party courier costs" - delivery was priced at R0.00. Ownership and Delivery Obligation: Omega cites their ownership clause: "The contract states goods remain property of the supplier until paid in full." Omega then argues: "Ownership transfer does not automatically determine delivery cost allocation or physical logistics arrangements discussed between the parties." Omega's own quote terms state: "ALL GOODS REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF Omega Industries (PTY) LTD UNTIL PAID FOR IN FULL." Payment in full was completed December 23, 2025. If goods are manufactured and complete as Omega claims, ownership has transferred and delivery is required per the written contract terms. If goods remain Omega's property due to non-delivery, then no ownership transfer has occurred and refund is due. Omega cannot simultaneously claim goods are ready for collection ***nership transferred) while retaining them as their property. Courier Allegation: Omega states: "The allegation that goods were dispatched under a 'free delivery agreement' and then terms were changed is incorrect." Documented evidence shows:
- Boots were dispatched to The Courier Guy hub in Barberton
- The Courier Guy was informed by Omega that client would be liable for R7,665 courier fees
- This contradicts the Quote #7814 "Free delivery - R0.00" term
Current Position: As of 13 February 2026:
- Payment in full: R284,002 (completed 23 December 2025)
- Goods delivered: None
- Goods in my possession: None
- Ownership transferred through delivery: No
The contract specified delivery to our address at no additional cost. We are not obligated to collect goods that were contracted for delivery, nor to pay courier fees that contradict the written quote. Regulatory Escalation: This matter has been escalated to the Ombudsman for Banking Services and the National Consumer Commission of South Africa. This is no longer merely a dispute over contractual terms - it has evolved into a matter of business conduct requiring regulatory oversight. The pattern of contradictory statements, unilateral changes to agreed terms after payment, and strategic repositioning to avoid both delivery and refund obligations demonstrates conduct that falls within the mandate of consumer protection authorities. All correspondence, production records, and documented evidence have been preserved and are available for formal review by legal and regulatory authorities.
CVdB
Charnelle Van den Berg's update13 Feb 2026, 09:44
Reviewer Update
Payment Timing and Delivery Date:
Omega states that "repeated references to 15 December as a delivery deadline are inaccurate" because payment was not completed by that date.
The Purchase Order suspensive condition states: "Goods shall only be supp**** once full payment is fulfilled."
This condition governs when supply occurs - not when payment must occur. Payment was completed in full on 23 December 2025, thereby fulfilling the suspensive condition and triggering Omega's obligation to supply.
The December 15 delivery date represents the contracted delivery timeline. Payment completion on December 23 fulfilled the condition for supply. Omega has now had seven weeks since payment to deliver goods as contracted.
Manufacturing Status - Contradictory Claims:
Omega states: "All items for which complete sizing and specification were provided have been manufactured and are available."
Omega also states: "Outstanding sizing information prevents final completion of certain items."
Which items are complete and which are incomplete? This contradiction makes it impossible to determine what Omega is actually claiming.
All sizing requirements were provided via email and WhatsApp. This correspondence has been verified by Commissioner of Oaths as true and valid. If Omega claims sizing is incomplete, they must specify which items and provide evidence that sizing requests were sent but not answered.
Free Delivery - Written Agreement:
Omega states: "There is no written agreement where Omega agreed to absorb unlimited third-party courier costs beyond what was factored into pricing."
Quote #7814 IS the written agreement. It explicitly states:
- "Delivery: Free delivery"
- "Price: R0.00"
- "Amount: R0.00"
Purchase Order PO*** specifies:
- "Delivery to: 65 President Street, Barberton"
- "Delivery date: 15 December 2025"
These are not ambiguous terms requiring interpretation. "Free delivery" to a specified address means Omega bears delivery costs. There is no carve-out for "third-party courier costs" - delivery was priced at R0.00. Ownership and Delivery Obligation: Omega cites their ownership clause: "The contract states goods remain property of the supplier until paid in full." Omega then argues: "Ownership transfer does not automatically determine delivery cost allocation or physical logistics arrangements discussed between the parties." Omega's own quote terms state: "ALL GOODS REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF Omega Industries (PTY) LTD UNTIL PAID FOR IN FULL." Payment in full was completed December 23, 2025. If goods are manufactured and complete as Omega claims, ownership has transferred and delivery is required per the written contract terms. If goods remain Omega's property due to non-delivery, then no ownership transfer has occurred and refund is due. Omega cannot simultaneously claim goods are ready for collection ***nership transferred) while retaining them as their property. Courier Allegation: Omega states: "The allegation that goods were dispatched under a 'free delivery agreement' and then terms were changed is incorrect." Documented evidence shows:
- Boots were dispatched to The Courier Guy hub in Barberton
- The Courier Guy was informed by Omega that client would be liable for R7,665 courier fees
- This contradicts the Quote #7814 "Free delivery - R0.00" term
Current Position: As of 13 February 2026:
- Payment in full: R284,002 (completed 23 December 2025)
- Goods delivered: None
- Goods in my possession: None
- Ownership transferred through delivery: No
The contract specified delivery to our address at no additional cost. We are not obligated to collect goods that were contracted for delivery, nor to pay courier fees that contradict the written quote. Regulatory Escalation: This matter has been escalated to the Ombudsman for Banking Services and the National Consumer Commission of South Africa. This is no longer merely a dispute over contractual terms - it has evolved into a matter of business conduct requiring regulatory oversight. The pattern of contradictory statements, unilateral changes to agreed terms after payment, and strategic repositioning to avoid both delivery and refund obligations demonstrates conduct that falls within the mandate of consumer protection authorities. All correspondence, production records, and documented evidence have been preserved and are available for formal review by legal and regulatory authorities.
CVdB
Charnelle Van den Berg's updateReviewer Update
13 Feb 2026, 09:51 As of 09:47, February 13th 2026, we have received zero formal email correspondence from Omega Industries or their legal representatives.
This is notable given that Omega posted yesterday: "That issue is currently being handled through formal channels. All documentation is available for review by legal representatives or any competent authority. We will not engage in further public back-and-forth on this platform."
Yet Omega has:
- Continued to post multiple public responses on this platform
- Sent no email correspondence to our legal representative (as instructed by our attorney on February 12th)
- Provided no formal documentation substantiating their contradictory claims
If this matter is "being handled through formal channels" as claimed, where is the formal correspondence?
CVdB
Charnelle Van den Berg's update13 Feb 2026, 09:51
Reviewer Update
As of 09:47, February 13th 2026, we have received zero formal email correspondence from Omega Industries or their legal representatives.
This is notable given that Omega posted yesterday: "That issue is currently being handled through formal channels. All documentation is available for review by legal representatives or any competent authority. We will not engage in further public back-and-forth on this platform."
Yet Omega has:
- Continued to post multiple public responses on this platform
- Sent no email correspondence to our legal representative (as instructed by our attorney on February 12th)
- Provided no formal documentation substantiating their contradictory claims
If this matter is "being handled through formal channels" as claimed, where is the formal correspondence?
OMEGA INDUSTRIES's replyOfficial
13 Feb 2026, 10:31Omega Industries – Final Clarification of Record
This will be our final public response. The matter is already proceeding through formal legal channels.
For accuracy and transparency:
1. Formal Legal Correspondence – Record Correction
The statement that “zero formal email correspondence” has been received from Omega Industries or its representatives is demonstrably inaccurate.
Formal communication was sent to the appointed legal representative on:
- 30 January 2026
- Tuesday (this week)
- Wednesday (this week)
- Wednesday (follow-up)
- Yesterday
In addition to email correspondence, direct WhatsApp communication was conducted with the appointed Advocate regarding this matter.
These communications are timestamped and preserved.
The assertion that no formal contact was made is therefore not supported by the documented record.
2. Payment Timing vs Delivery Date
Full payment was completed on 23 December 2025.
Public references have alternated between:
- 15 December 2025 as a delivery deadline, and
- “mid-January” as the contractual delivery period.
These statements are internally inconsistent.
A delivery obligation contingent upon full payment cannot logically precede payment completion.
3. Manufacturing Status and Sizing Clarification
There is no contradiction.
• Items for which complete sizing information was received have been manufactured.
• Outstanding sizing information prevented completion of specific remaining items.
• Outstanding sizing information prevented completion of specific remaining items.
Production quantities correspond directly with specifications received.
If complete sizing information had been provided for the full order quantity, completed production numbers would match the total order volume.
The manufacturing record reflects the sizing data received.
4. Affidavit Statement vs Production Record
It has been publicly stated under oath that all sizing requirements were fully provided.
Our documented production and correspondence records reflect that certain sizing information remained incomplete.
This discrepancy between sworn statement and documented records will be addressed in the appropriate legal forum.
Omega will not debate sworn declarations on a public platform.
5. Physical Availability of Goods
Certain goods were transported to The Courier Guy hub in Barberton — approximately five minutes from the client’s office.
Those goods have remained available for collection for an extended period.
They have not been collected.
The assertion that “no goods exist” or that “nothing has been made available” is therefore factually incorrect.
6. Ownership Clause
The quotation states that goods remain property of Omega Industries until paid in full.
Payment was completed on 23 December 2025.
Ownership transfer does not automatically resolve third-party courier cost allocation under disputed logistical circumstances.
These are separate legal issues.
7. “Free Delivery – R0.00”
The quotation reflects “Delivery: Free delivery – R0.00.”
It does not constitute a written agreement that Omega agreed to absorb a specific third-party courier charge of R7,665 that was not contractually itemised or pre-agreed in writing.
No written agreement exists in which Omega accepted liability for an unspecified third-party courier amount.
8. Regulatory Escalation
Omega welcomes review by any competent authority.
All:
- Email correspondence
- WhatsApp communication
- Production records
- Dispatch confirmations
- Courier documentation
have been preserved and are available for formal review.
This is a contractual interpretation dispute regarding delivery logistics — not a matter of non-production.
The goods exist.
They have been manufactured according to received specifications.
They remain available.
They have been manufactured according to received specifications.
They remain available.
Omega will not continue public back-and-forth discussion on this platform.
The matter will proceed through formal legal channels.
OMEGA INDUSTRIES's reply13 Feb 2026, 10:31
Official
Omega Industries – Final Clarification of Record
This will be our final public response. The matter is already proceeding through formal legal channels.
For accuracy and transparency:
1. Formal Legal Correspondence – Record Correction
The statement that “zero formal email correspondence” has been received from Omega Industries or its representatives is demonstrably inaccurate.
Formal communication was sent to the appointed legal representative on:
- 30 January 2026
- Tuesday (this week)
- Wednesday (this week)
- Wednesday (follow-up)
- Yesterday
In addition to email correspondence, direct WhatsApp communication was conducted with the appointed Advocate regarding this matter.
These communications are timestamped and preserved.
The assertion that no formal contact was made is therefore not supported by the documented record.
2. Payment Timing vs Delivery Date
Full payment was completed on 23 December 2025.
Public references have alternated between:
- 15 December 2025 as a delivery deadline, and
- “mid-January” as the contractual delivery period.
These statements are internally inconsistent.
A delivery obligation contingent upon full payment cannot logically precede payment completion.
3. Manufacturing Status and Sizing Clarification
There is no contradiction.
• Items for which complete sizing information was received have been manufactured.
• Outstanding sizing information prevented completion of specific remaining items.
• Outstanding sizing information prevented completion of specific remaining items.
Production quantities correspond directly with specifications received.
If complete sizing information had been provided for the full order quantity, completed production numbers would match the total order volume.
The manufacturing record reflects the sizing data received.
4. Affidavit Statement vs Production Record
It has been publicly stated under oath that all sizing requirements were fully provided.
Our documented production and correspondence records reflect that certain sizing information remained incomplete.
This discrepancy between sworn statement and documented records will be addressed in the appropriate legal forum.
Omega will not debate sworn declarations on a public platform.
5. Physical Availability of Goods
Certain goods were transported to The Courier Guy hub in Barberton — approximately five minutes from the client’s office.
Those goods have remained available for collection for an extended period.
They have not been collected.
The assertion that “no goods exist” or that “nothing has been made available” is therefore factually incorrect.
6. Ownership Clause
The quotation states that goods remain property of Omega Industries until paid in full.
Payment was completed on 23 December 2025.
Ownership transfer does not automatically resolve third-party courier cost allocation under disputed logistical circumstances.
These are separate legal issues.
7. “Free Delivery – R0.00”
The quotation reflects “Delivery: Free delivery – R0.00.”
It does not constitute a written agreement that Omega agreed to absorb a specific third-party courier charge of R7,665 that was not contractually itemised or pre-agreed in writing.
No written agreement exists in which Omega accepted liability for an unspecified third-party courier amount.
8. Regulatory Escalation
Omega welcomes review by any competent authority.
All:
- Email correspondence
- WhatsApp communication
- Production records
- Dispatch confirmations
- Courier documentation
have been preserved and are available for formal review.
This is a contractual interpretation dispute regarding delivery logistics — not a matter of non-production.
The goods exist.
They have been manufactured according to received specifications.
They remain available.
They have been manufactured according to received specifications.
They remain available.
Omega will not continue public back-and-forth discussion on this platform.
The matter will proceed through formal legal channels.
CVdB
Charnelle Van den Berg's updateReviewer Update
13 Feb 2026, 11:00Final Response - Matter of Record:
Formal Correspondence:
Omega claims formal email correspondence was sent on "Tuesday, Wednesday, Wednesday (follow-up), and Yesterday."
Our legal representative has received zero formal email correspondence from Omega Industries regarding this dispute. If such correspondence exists, Omega should provide the email addresses, timestamps, and subject lines to substantiate this claim.
WhatsApp messages between Omega and our attorney do not constitute the "formal email correspondence" our attorney specifically requested.
Affidavit and Sizing:
Omega states: "This discrepancy between the sworn statement and documented records will be addressed in the appropriate legal forum."
I stand by my sworn affidavit. All sizing information was provided via email and WhatsApp. If Omega claims specific sizing was not received, they must identify which items and provide evidence that sizing requests were sent but not answered. Making vague claims about "incomplete sizing" without specifics does not constitute proof.
Goods Location and Delivery Obligation:
Omega confirms goods were sent to Courier Guy hub in Barberton - not delivered to our address as contracted.
The Purchase Order specifies: "Delivery to: 65 President Street, Barberton." The contract was for delivery to our premises, not for collection from a courier hub 75km away.
Free Delivery Interpretation:
Omega argues that "Free delivery - R0.00" does not mean they agreed to "absorb a specific third-party courier charge of R7,665."
The quote states delivery is R0.00. The Purchase Order specifies delivery to our address. There is no ambiguity requiring interpretation. Omega dispatched goods to a courier hub and attempted to transfer costs that were contractually their responsibility.
Current Position:
As of February 13, 2026:
- Goods in our possession: Zero
- Delivery to contracted address completed: No
- Refund issued: No
This matter proceeds through legal and regulatory channels as stated.
CVdB
Charnelle Van den Berg's update13 Feb 2026, 11:00
Reviewer Update
Final Response - Matter of Record:
Formal Correspondence:
Omega claims formal email correspondence was sent on "Tuesday, Wednesday, Wednesday (follow-up), and Yesterday."
Our legal representative has received zero formal email correspondence from Omega Industries regarding this dispute. If such correspondence exists, Omega should provide the email addresses, timestamps, and subject lines to substantiate this claim.
WhatsApp messages between Omega and our attorney do not constitute the "formal email correspondence" our attorney specifically requested.
Affidavit and Sizing:
Omega states: "This discrepancy between the sworn statement and documented records will be addressed in the appropriate legal forum."
I stand by my sworn affidavit. All sizing information was provided via email and WhatsApp. If Omega claims specific sizing was not received, they must identify which items and provide evidence that sizing requests were sent but not answered. Making vague claims about "incomplete sizing" without specifics does not constitute proof.
Goods Location and Delivery Obligation:
Omega confirms goods were sent to Courier Guy hub in Barberton - not delivered to our address as contracted.
The Purchase Order specifies: "Delivery to: 65 President Street, Barberton." The contract was for delivery to our premises, not for collection from a courier hub 75km away.
Free Delivery Interpretation:
Omega argues that "Free delivery - R0.00" does not mean they agreed to "absorb a specific third-party courier charge of R7,665."
The quote states delivery is R0.00. The Purchase Order specifies delivery to our address. There is no ambiguity requiring interpretation. Omega dispatched goods to a courier hub and attempted to transfer costs that were contractually their responsibility.
Current Position:
As of February 13, 2026:
- Goods in our possession: Zero
- Delivery to contracted address completed: No
- Refund issued: No
This matter proceeds through legal and regulatory channels as stated.
OMEGA INDUSTRIES's replyOfficial
13 Feb 2026, 11:04Omega Industries – Final Clarification of Record
This will be our final public response. The matter is already proceeding through formal legal channels.
For accuracy and transparency:
1. Formal Legal Correspondence – Record Correction
The statement that “zero formal email correspondence” has been received from Omega Industries or its representatives is demonstrably inaccurate.
Formal communication was sent to the appointed legal representative on:
- 30 January 2026
- Tuesday (this week)
- Wednesday (this week)
- Wednesday (follow-up)
- Yesterday
In addition to email correspondence, direct WhatsApp communication was conducted with the appointed Advocate regarding this matter.
These communications are timestamped and preserved.
The assertion that no formal contact was made is therefore not supported by the documented record.
2. Payment Timing vs Delivery Date
Full payment was completed on 23 December 2025.
Public references have alternated between:
- 15 December 2025 as a delivery deadline, and
- “mid-January” as the contractual delivery period.
These statements are internally inconsistent.
A delivery obligation contingent upon full payment cannot logically precede payment completion.
3. Manufacturing Status and Sizing Clarification
There is no contradiction.
• Items for which complete sizing information was received have been manufactured.
• Outstanding sizing information prevented completion of specific remaining items.
• Outstanding sizing information prevented completion of specific remaining items.
Production quantities correspond directly with specifications received.
If complete sizing information had been provided for the full order quantity, completed production numbers would match the total order volume.
The manufacturing record reflects the sizing data received.
4. Affidavit Statement vs Production Record
It has been publicly stated under oath that all sizing requirements were fully provided.
Our documented production and correspondence records reflect that certain sizing information remained incomplete.
This discrepancy between sworn statement and documented records will be addressed in the appropriate legal forum.
Omega will not debate sworn declarations on a public platform.
5. Physical Availability of Goods
Certain goods were transported to The Courier Guy hub in Barberton — approximately five minutes from the client’s office.
Those goods have remained available for collection for an extended period.
They have not been collected.
The assertion that “no goods exist” or that “nothing has been made available” is therefore factually incorrect.
6. Ownership Clause
The quotation states that goods remain property of Omega Industries until paid in full.
Payment was completed on 23 December 2025.
Ownership transfer does not automatically resolve third-party courier cost allocation under disputed logistical circumstances.
These are separate legal issues.
7. “Free Delivery – R0.00”
The quotation reflects “Delivery: Free delivery – R0.00.”
It does not constitute a written agreement that Omega agreed to absorb a specific third-party courier charge of R7,665 that was not contractually itemised or pre-agreed in writing.
No written agreement exists in which Omega accepted liability for an unspecified third-party courier amount.
8. Regulatory Escalation
Omega welcomes review by any competent authority.
All:
- Email correspondence
- WhatsApp communication
- Production records
- Dispatch confirmations
- Courier documentation
have been preserved and are available for formal review.
This is a contractual interpretation dispute regarding delivery logistics — not a matter of non-production.
The goods exist.
They have been manufactured according to received specifications.
They remain available.
They have been manufactured according to received specifications.
They remain available.
Omega will not continue public back-and-forth discussion on this platform.
The matter will proceed through formal legal channels.
OMEGA INDUSTRIES's reply13 Feb 2026, 11:04
Official
Omega Industries – Final Clarification of Record
This will be our final public response. The matter is already proceeding through formal legal channels.
For accuracy and transparency:
1. Formal Legal Correspondence – Record Correction
The statement that “zero formal email correspondence” has been received from Omega Industries or its representatives is demonstrably inaccurate.
Formal communication was sent to the appointed legal representative on:
- 30 January 2026
- Tuesday (this week)
- Wednesday (this week)
- Wednesday (follow-up)
- Yesterday
In addition to email correspondence, direct WhatsApp communication was conducted with the appointed Advocate regarding this matter.
These communications are timestamped and preserved.
The assertion that no formal contact was made is therefore not supported by the documented record.
2. Payment Timing vs Delivery Date
Full payment was completed on 23 December 2025.
Public references have alternated between:
- 15 December 2025 as a delivery deadline, and
- “mid-January” as the contractual delivery period.
These statements are internally inconsistent.
A delivery obligation contingent upon full payment cannot logically precede payment completion.
3. Manufacturing Status and Sizing Clarification
There is no contradiction.
• Items for which complete sizing information was received have been manufactured.
• Outstanding sizing information prevented completion of specific remaining items.
• Outstanding sizing information prevented completion of specific remaining items.
Production quantities correspond directly with specifications received.
If complete sizing information had been provided for the full order quantity, completed production numbers would match the total order volume.
The manufacturing record reflects the sizing data received.
4. Affidavit Statement vs Production Record
It has been publicly stated under oath that all sizing requirements were fully provided.
Our documented production and correspondence records reflect that certain sizing information remained incomplete.
This discrepancy between sworn statement and documented records will be addressed in the appropriate legal forum.
Omega will not debate sworn declarations on a public platform.
5. Physical Availability of Goods
Certain goods were transported to The Courier Guy hub in Barberton — approximately five minutes from the client’s office.
Those goods have remained available for collection for an extended period.
They have not been collected.
The assertion that “no goods exist” or that “nothing has been made available” is therefore factually incorrect.
6. Ownership Clause
The quotation states that goods remain property of Omega Industries until paid in full.
Payment was completed on 23 December 2025.
Ownership transfer does not automatically resolve third-party courier cost allocation under disputed logistical circumstances.
These are separate legal issues.
7. “Free Delivery – R0.00”
The quotation reflects “Delivery: Free delivery – R0.00.”
It does not constitute a written agreement that Omega agreed to absorb a specific third-party courier charge of R7,665 that was not contractually itemised or pre-agreed in writing.
No written agreement exists in which Omega accepted liability for an unspecified third-party courier amount.
8. Regulatory Escalation
Omega welcomes review by any competent authority.
All:
- Email correspondence
- WhatsApp communication
- Production records
- Dispatch confirmations
- Courier documentation
have been preserved and are available for formal review.
This is a contractual interpretation dispute regarding delivery logistics — not a matter of non-production.
The goods exist.
They have been manufactured according to received specifications.
They remain available.
They have been manufactured according to received specifications.
They remain available.
Omega will not continue public back-and-forth discussion on this platform.
The matter will proceed through formal legal channels.
CVdB
Charnelle Van den Berg's updateReviewer Update
13 Feb 2026, 11:06Location Misrepresentation:
Omega states: "Certain goods were transported to The Courier Guy hub in Barberton — approximately 5 minutes from the client's office."
This is factually incorrect on both counts:
- The goods are at Courier Guy NELSPRUIT, not Barberton
- Nelspruit is approximately 40-50 kilometers from our Barberton office - a 30-45 minute drive each way, not "5 minutes"
This significant misrepresentation of location and distance appears designed to make our position seem unreasonable, when the contract specified delivery to our address at 65 President Street, Barberton - not collection from a courier hub in a different city 50km away.
CVdB
Charnelle Van den Berg's update13 Feb 2026, 11:06
Reviewer Update
Location Misrepresentation:
Omega states: "Certain goods were transported to The Courier Guy hub in Barberton — approximately 5 minutes from the client's office."
This is factually incorrect on both counts:
- The goods are at Courier Guy NELSPRUIT, not Barberton
- Nelspruit is approximately 40-50 kilometers from our Barberton office - a 30-45 minute drive each way, not "5 minutes"
This significant misrepresentation of location and distance appears designed to make our position seem unreasonable, when the contract specified delivery to our address at 65 President Street, Barberton - not collection from a courier hub in a different city 50km away.
CVdB
Charnelle Van den Berg's updateReviewer Update
13 Feb 2026, 11:07inal Response - Matter of Record:
Formal Correspondence:
Omega claims formal email correspondence was sent on "Tuesday, Wednesday, Wednesday (follow-up), and Yesterday."
Our legal representative has received zero formal email correspondence from Omega Industries regarding this dispute. If such correspondence exists, Omega should provide the email addresses, timestamps, and subject lines to substantiate this claim.
WhatsApp messages between Omega and our attorney do not constitute the "formal email correspondence" our attorney specifically requested.
Affidavit and Sizing:
Omega states: "This discrepancy between the sworn statement and documented records will be addressed in the appropriate legal forum."
I stand by my sworn affidavit. All sizing information was provided via email and WhatsApp. If Omega claims specific sizing was not received, they must identify which items and provide evidence that sizing requests were sent but not answered. Making vague claims about "incomplete sizing" without specifics does not constitute proof.
Goods Location and Delivery Obligation:
Omega confirms goods were sent to Courier Guy hub in Barberton - not delivered to our address as contracted.
The Purchase Order specifies: "Delivery to: 65 President Street, Barberton." The contract was for delivery to our premises, not for collection from a courier hub 75km away.
Free Delivery Interpretation:
Omega argues that "Free delivery - R0.00" does not mean they agreed to "absorb a specific third-party courier charge of R7,665."
The quote states delivery is R0.00. The Purchase Order specifies delivery to our address. There is no ambiguity requiring interpretation. Omega dispatched goods to a courier hub and attempted to transfer costs that were contractually their responsibility.
Current Position:
As of February 13, 2026:
- Goods in our possession: Zero
- Delivery to contracted address completed: No
- Refund issued: No
This matter proceeds through legal and regulatory channels as stated.
Location Misrepresentation:
Location Misrepresentation:
Omega states: "Certain goods were transported to The Courier Guy hub in Barberton — approximately 5 minutes from the client's office."
This is factually incorrect on both counts:
- The goods are at Courier Guy NELSPRUIT, not Barberton
- Nelspruit is approximately 40-50 kilometers from our Barberton office - a 30-45 minute drive each way, not "5 minutes"
This significant misrepresentation of location and distance appears designed to make our position seem unreasonable, when the contract specified delivery to our address at 65 President Street, Barberton - not collection from a courier hub in a different city 50km away.
CVdB
Charnelle Van den Berg's update13 Feb 2026, 11:07
Reviewer Update
inal Response - Matter of Record:
Formal Correspondence:
Omega claims formal email correspondence was sent on "Tuesday, Wednesday, Wednesday (follow-up), and Yesterday."
Our legal representative has received zero formal email correspondence from Omega Industries regarding this dispute. If such correspondence exists, Omega should provide the email addresses, timestamps, and subject lines to substantiate this claim.
WhatsApp messages between Omega and our attorney do not constitute the "formal email correspondence" our attorney specifically requested.
Affidavit and Sizing:
Omega states: "This discrepancy between the sworn statement and documented records will be addressed in the appropriate legal forum."
I stand by my sworn affidavit. All sizing information was provided via email and WhatsApp. If Omega claims specific sizing was not received, they must identify which items and provide evidence that sizing requests were sent but not answered. Making vague claims about "incomplete sizing" without specifics does not constitute proof.
Goods Location and Delivery Obligation:
Omega confirms goods were sent to Courier Guy hub in Barberton - not delivered to our address as contracted.
The Purchase Order specifies: "Delivery to: 65 President Street, Barberton." The contract was for delivery to our premises, not for collection from a courier hub 75km away.
Free Delivery Interpretation:
Omega argues that "Free delivery - R0.00" does not mean they agreed to "absorb a specific third-party courier charge of R7,665."
The quote states delivery is R0.00. The Purchase Order specifies delivery to our address. There is no ambiguity requiring interpretation. Omega dispatched goods to a courier hub and attempted to transfer costs that were contractually their responsibility.
Current Position:
As of February 13, 2026:
- Goods in our possession: Zero
- Delivery to contracted address completed: No
- Refund issued: No
This matter proceeds through legal and regulatory channels as stated.
Location Misrepresentation:
Location Misrepresentation:
Omega states: "Certain goods were transported to The Courier Guy hub in Barberton — approximately 5 minutes from the client's office."
This is factually incorrect on both counts:
- The goods are at Courier Guy NELSPRUIT, not Barberton
- Nelspruit is approximately 40-50 kilometers from our Barberton office - a 30-45 minute drive each way, not "5 minutes"
This significant misrepresentation of location and distance appears designed to make our position seem unreasonable, when the contract specified delivery to our address at 65 President Street, Barberton - not collection from a courier hub in a different city 50km away.