1 reviews | Active since Jan 2020
Takealot Refuses to Honour Price – CPA Section 23 Concern
I am raising a concern regarding Takealot’s refusal to honour a confirmed order, which I believe is inconsistent with the Consumer Protection Act.
I purchased a director’s camping chair with a side table advertised at approximately R89, reflecting a discount of around 90%. The item was clearly listed as available, and the order was successfully placed and confirmed.
The order was later cancelled by Takealot, citing a “pricing error.”
While I understand that errors may occur, Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act allows reliance on a pricing error only where such error is obvious to a reasonable consumer. In this case, the pricing was presented in the same format as standard promotional and clearance discounts regularly advertised on the platform. There was nothing to indicate that the price was erroneous.
Despite raising this with Takealot, the responses received rely on internal policies and terms and conditions, which cannot override statutory consumer rights. No explanation has been provided as to how this pricing meets the legal threshold of an “obvious error.”
I have formally requested that Takealot either honour the transaction or provide a legally substantiated justification. Failing resolution, I will proceed with a complaint to the National Consumer Commission.
I trust that this matter will be reviewed at the appropriate level and resolved in line with the Consumer Protection Act.
I previously raised a concern regarding Takealot cancelling my order for a director’s camping chair with side table, originally advertised at approximately R89 (±90% discount).
What is now particularly concerning is that I have received multiple, inconsistent explanations for the cancellation:
- Initially, I was told it was due to a pricing error;
- Then a warehouse cancellation;
- Most recently, I have been advised that it was due to stock unavailability from a third-party seller.
These are materially different reasons, and no single clear or substantiated explanation has been provided.
In addition:
- The item remains available on the platform;
- No evidence has been provided that the seller was unable to fulfil the order at the time of purchase;
- The refund processed does not clearly reconcile with the original transaction amount.
From a Consumer Protection Act perspective:
- If this is a pricing error, Section 23 requires that it be obvious to a reasonable consumer, which has not been demonstrated;
- If this is a stock issue, Section 19 applies, which requires proper fulfilment or appropriate handling, which remains unclear in this case.
At present, the matter appears to lack transparency and consistency, which is concerning.
I have requested a clear, legally substantiated explanation from Takealot and an appropriate resolution. Failing this, I will be proceeding with a formal complaint to the National Consumer Commission.
I trust that Takealot will review this matter at the appropriate level and provide a clear and consistent resolution.
I previously raised a concern regarding Takealot cancelling my order for a director’s camping chair with side table, originally advertised at approximately R89 (±90% discount).
What is now particularly concerning is that I have received multiple, inconsistent explanations for the cancellation:
- Initially, I was told it was due to a pricing error;
- Then a warehouse cancellation;
- Most recently, I have been advised that it was due to stock unavailability from a third-party seller.
These are materially different reasons, and no single clear or substantiated explanation has been provided.
In addition:
- The item remains available on the platform;
- No evidence has been provided that the seller was unable to fulfil the order at the time of purchase;
- The refund processed does not clearly reconcile with the original transaction amount.
From a Consumer Protection Act perspective:
- If this is a pricing error, Section 23 requires that it be obvious to a reasonable consumer, which has not been demonstrated;
- If this is a stock issue, Section 19 applies, which requires proper fulfilment or appropriate handling, which remains unclear in this case.
At present, the matter appears to lack transparency and consistency, which is concerning.
I have requested a clear, legally substantiated explanation from Takealot and an appropriate resolution. Failing this, I will be proceeding with a formal complaint to the National Consumer Commission.
I trust that Takealot will review this matter at the appropriate level and provide a clear and consistent resolution.