The term Voetstoots, a legal animal inherited
by us from the Dutch, has never been more contentious than right now. After the
Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”) came into effect and with the broadcast on an
insert on Carte Blance about a badly
defective house (and the trouble it
caused for its new owners), many people seem to think that Voetstoots has disappeared
from our property horizon. In my opinion (and
that of 99% of all lawyers in South Africa), this is not the case.

Has Voetstoots been removed from our legal system by the CPA?
·
New properties purchased from developers or
sellers who sell property in the ordinary course of their business: YES - the CPA is applicable and
purchasers are afforded protection in terms of the CPA
·
Secondhand properties privately purchased: NO. If the Voetstoots (or a similar)
clause is inserted in the deed of sale, Voetstoots is applicable
·
Secondhand properties purchased with the
assistance of an estate agent: NO.
The arguments to justify this are that the CPA is not applicable to professions
which are governed by their own acts of parliament (such as attorneys, medical
professionals and estate agents) and that estate agents are simply go-betweens
between sellers and purchasers and that the only parties to the sale of
property are them. It goes without saying that the Voetstoots (or a similar) clause
must be inserted in the deed of sale.
However, the jury is still out on this issue.
Until the matter is decided in court, the above is simply an opinion.
No comments:
Post a Comment