Real Estate Investor Magazine South Africa February 2015 | Page 38

LEGAL BY GAWIE LE ROUX The Consumer Protection Act exposed The Centre for Legal Compliance clarifies the outdated misinterpretation of the Act S ection 14 of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) deals with the crucial cancellation and renewal requirements of fixed term agreements. It, however, is not applicable to fixed term lease agreements relating to land; and estate agents’ mandate agreements. “The correct method of legal interpretation of the CPA can make all the difference!” Until now, most lawyers and property practitioners believed Section 14 of the CPA is applicable to fixed term lease agreements and estate agent’s mandate agreements. This interpretation, however, is outdated. It has resulted in fixed term lease agreements relating to land and estate agents’ mandate agreements being subjected to various undesirable restrictions, unfair preferences and allowances pertaining to repeated breach and automatic continuation of these agreements. The good news, according to Gawie Le Roux and Ilse Pretorius of the Centre for Legal Compliance, is the correct method of legal interpretation of the CPA can make all the difference! Until now, most jurists, auditors and property practitioners have used the very narrow and outdated literalist approach to legal interpretation. However, the application of the much more acceptable, and 38 February 2015 SA Real Estate Investor constitutionally supported, advanced purposive method of legal interpretation leads to more desirable results, thereby excluding the unfair and problematic consequences of the CPA, in respect of these agreements. When the ‘purposive’ (or ‘contextual’) approach to legal interpretation is applied to Section 14, it becomes quite clear it was never the intention of the legislator to make it applicable to these type of agreements. The consequences are far reaching. For example, all restrictions to the cancellation and renewal requirements imposed by the CPA to fixed term agreements, in general, are not applicable to these type of agreements. This means the common law is still the guiding factor, as had been the case before the CPA came into operation. In an upcoming seminar presented by the Centre for Legal Compliance, Gawie Le Roux and Ilse Pretorius will illustrate that Section 14 of the CPA was never intended to be made applicable to these type of agreements. Those interested in attending the seminar and to learn more about this radical new approach to legal interpretation can visit www.legalcompliance.org or contact [email protected] or call [phone] for more details. RESOURCES Centre for Legal Compliance www.reimag.co.za