MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6991760764

The influence of Part G of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 on the general principles of contract

2016· dissertation· en· W6991760764 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUpSpace Institutional Repository (University of Pretoria) · 2016
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Issues in South Africa
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinisterio de Economía y CompetitividadMcMaster University
KeywordsConsumer protectionConsumer Protection ActLegislationGovernment (linguistics)Data Protection Act 1998
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This dissertation considers and evaluates how the implementation of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 ("CPA") and more specifically Part G thereof influences the common law in relation to contract law and the consumer's rights' to fair just and reasonable contract terms, together with considering the pit falls of the CPA in its current form and the sections which require amendment.It will be illustrated that the CPA has been drafted with the clear intention of protecting and benefiting the consumer by codifying the common law provisions in order to strengthen the consumer's position within consumer markets.Many terms and principles introduced by the CPA are foreign to the South African legal system.It can be expected with any entirely new piece of legislation implemented within an existing legal system that there will be conflicts and uncertainties in the application thereof.Ultimately this dissertation has found two sets of conclusions.Firstly the general effect that Part G of the CPA has on consumer markets, namely strengthening consumer rights thereby enabling consumers, more particularly historically disadvantaged consumers to actively partake in consumer markets as a whole.Secondly this dissertation unfortunately has also found that the CPA has failed to use essential mechanisms as used in the United Kingdom and European Union unfair terms legislation to curb unfair unjust and unreasonable contract terms.iii Opsomming Hierdie verhandeling oorweeg en evalueer hoe die implementering van die Verbruikers Beskerming Wet No. 68 van 2008 (hierna " VBW ") en meer spesifiek Deel G daarvan wat die gemenereg met betrekking tot kontraktereg beïnvloed en die verbruiker se regte tot billike, regverdige en redelike kontrakterme, tesame met die oorweging oor die moontlike gevaar van die VBW in sy huidige vorm en die gedeeltes wat wysigings vereis.Dit sal geïllustreer word dat die VBW opgestel is met die duidelike bedoeling om beskerming en voordeel van die verbruiker deur kodifisering van die Gemene Reg beginsels wat voorsiening maak daarvoor om die posisie van die verbruiker binne die verbruikersmarkte te versterk.Heelwat van die bepalings en beginsels wat deur die VBW bekendgestel is, is vreemd tot die Suid-Afrikaanse regsisteem.Dus kan daar verwag word dat die implementeering van 'n nuwe stuk wetgewing binne 'n bestaande regstelsel, konflik en onsekerheid in die toepassing daarvan ondervind sal word.Gevolglik is daar twee stelle gevolgtrekkinge wat uit hierdie verhandeling spruit.Eerstens; die algemene effek wat Deel G van die VBW op verbruikersmarkte gehad het, naamlik die bevordering van verbruikers se regte wat daardeur verbruikers, veral voorheen benadeelde verbruikers, in staat stel om aktief deel te neem in verbruikers markte in die geheel.Tweedens het die verhandeling ongelukkig ook gevind dat die VBW versuim het om essensiële meganismes toe te pas, soos wat dit gebruik word in die Verenigde Koninkryk en die Europese Unie naamlik, onregverdige kontrak bepalinge wetgewing wat onregverdige en onredelike kontrakvoorwaardes voorkom.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.215
Threshold uncertainty score0.427

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0140.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.007

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUpSpace Institutional Repository (University of Pretoria)Same topicLegal Issues in South AfricaFrench-language works237,207