A conveyancer successfully challenges a R250,000 claim, revealing widespread non-compliance with the Consumer Protection Act in South Africa's telecoms and office equipment sectors
Image: Pexels
A Hermanus conveyancer has successfully fought off a claim of nearly R250 000 after a dispute with a Cape-based photocopier supplier exposed what consumer law specialists describe as widespread non-compliance with the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) in the telecoms and office equipment industry.
The case centres on Sarah Chapman, who found herself facing legal action after attempting to cancel a photocopier agreement she inherited when purchasing a legal practice in February 2025.
The matter was ultimately resolved in her favour after intervention by Trudie Broekmann Attorneys, a law firm specialising in consumer law disputes.
Consumer law expert Trudie Broekmann says her firm has increasingly been approached by professionals attempting to escape fixed-term telecoms and equipment contracts they no longer want or need.
Her clients have included medical doctors, labour law firms, optometrists, churches and display designers.
“It’s not a particularly law-abiding industry,” Broekmann says. “They really go all-out to prevent consumers from exercising their legal right to cancel an unwanted contract.
“And when you cancel, they try to force the consumer to pay the fees for the rest of the contract term despite the cancellation. I have found in all the cases I’ve handled that the contracts don’t comply with the Consumer Protection Act, which in the worst cases mean the entire contract is invalid, which is good news for consumers.”
The dispute began after Chapman bought a practice from a colleague and inherited an existing photocopier agreement that had already been running for two and a half years.
“I bought a practice from my colleague in February 2025 and inherited a contract with the suppliers of the copy machines that had been running for two and a half years,” Chapman says.
“I started speaking to their agent to cancel the agreement, but they steadfastly refused, saying they could not cancel it and that the term was fixed.”
Chapman later signed a revised agreement in her own name in August 2025, but after researching the CPA, she formally notified the supplier in writing on 3 October 2025 that she was cancelling the agreement.
“After signing an agreement with them in August 2025, in my name, I started investigating the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and finally gave them written notice on the 3rd of October 2025 that I am cancelling the agreement.
“I gave them 20 business days’ notice, in accordance with section 14 of the CPA, and asked them to collect both photocopy machines, but they bluntly refused to accept the cancellation or to collect the machines,” Chapman says.
Despite the CPA not requiring it, Chapman offered to pay 10% of the remaining contract value as a cancellation penalty.
The supplier, Daisyfin, rejected the proposal and demanded more than R160 000 as a cancellation penalty. The matter escalated further when Chapman was served with a summons demanding R243 994.36 for allegedly breaching the agreement.
In court papers, Daisyfin argued Chapman had failed to continue paying monthly fees after the cancellation and that it was therefore entitled to accelerate the remaining contract value.
However, Gerhard van der Merwe says the company’s legal position was fundamentally flawed.
Van der Merwe argues that several provisions in the standard agreement breached the CPA and amounted to unfair contract terms.
According to him, the agreement appeared designed for legal entities rather than sole proprietors such as Chapman, meaning the contract was required to comply fully with consumer protection legislation.
He further argues that Daisyfin sued Chapman on the incorrect basis because there had been no breach of contract after she lawfully cancelled the agreement under section 14 of the CPA.
The matter was eventually settled after Van der Merwe intervened. Chapman agreed to pay R20 000, despite her attorneys maintaining that no cancellation penalty was legally due.
The case highlights growing concern around aggressive fixed-term contracts in South Africa’s telecoms and office equipment sectors.
The National Consumer Commission has previously warned consumers about unfair contract terms and unlawful cancellation penalties imposed by suppliers. Consumer complaints relating to fixed-term agreements, automatic renewals and excessive cancellation charges remain among the recurring issues raised under the CPA.
Section 14 of the CPA allows consumers to cancel fixed-term agreements by providing 20 business days’ notice. While suppliers may impose a reasonable cancellation penalty in limited circumstances, the law expressly prohibits penalties that effectively force consumers to pay the full outstanding contract balance.
Regulation 5 of the CPA also provides guidance on how cancellation penalties should be calculated and makes it clear that such charges must be reasonable and proportionate.
Van der Merwe says suppliers cannot simply draft contracts that override consumer protections.
According to him, consumer agreements may not include terms intended to circumvent the CPA or provisions that are unfair, unreasonable, misleading or excessively one-sided in favour of suppliers.
Broekmann says many service providers continue relying on contracts heavily skewed in their own favour, often targeting professionals nearing retirement or attempting to close practices.
“So consumers who are not up to speed with their rights under the Consumer Protection Act can come off second best, which is a defeat for justice and the rule of law,” Broekmann says.
She advises consumers seeking to cancel fixed-term agreements to ensure all notices are submitted in writing to both the supplier and service company, which are often separate entities.
“But if you simply quote section 14 of the CPA, make sure you cancel in writing with both the supplier and the service company who are often two separate companies, give a month’s notice, refuse to pay a cancellation penalty and make sure that your debit order is stopped, then you can exit without any further expense,” she says.
PERSONAL FINANCE