Does the CPA allow disgruntled husbands redress? I contend that it does afford the husband, as the acquirer of the spousal goods, the opportunity to exercise their rights in terms of this Act.
Perhaps somebody can advise me how to exercise those rights. In the interim I have made one application to the Clerk of the Court or should this application rather be addressed to the Commissioner?
Main picture: Janine when I first me her. Study fastidiously the product that I received: blond hair, lithe body and a welcoming smile.
To the Clerk of the Court Roodepoort
I am aware that this is a slightly unusual request but I have applied my mind assiduously to this problem and I believe that you are correct person to whom I should address my complaint.
On 3rd September 1986 I was legally betrothed to Janine Scotney, nee Jessen at the Magistrates Court in Roodepoort. I married this person in good faith in anticipation of a life time of happiness, great service and enjoyment. She has failed to measure up in certain critical respects after 28 years.
As I am under the belief that the newly promulgated Consumer Protection Act, hereinafter referred to as CPA, has wider applicability, I hereby would like to avail myself of the options under the Act. Before I select my option, I would like to advise that the one designated as Repair would not be possible in this case. Unless you are able to replace her with someone of equal stature and ability please do not attempt to do so. Failing that I would hereby like to apply for a refund.
The facts of the case are now set out below.
The first issue that I would like to obtain clarity on is the effective period. I do concede that that 28 years of marriage might be considered an unduly long period for the Applicability of this Act to remain in force. However I contend that as the acquired goods, my Wife, came with a life time guarantee, and that as such, any defects howsoever and whenever incurred should fall within the ambit of the said Act.
Where I would concede that the period does not apply is that during the courtship phase as this can be likened to a trial usage period and thus does not constitute part of the agreement. The logic for this decision is based solely upon the understanding that one is able to return or reject the said defective goods prior to the formal signing of the nuptials from which time the warranty comes into effect.
Furthermore under the fair use provisions of the Act, one cannot expect one’s spouse to be in pristine condition after 28 years but I did expect her to maintain a key characteristic on which the initial selection was based namely the hair colour. As a pivotal decision in the selection of Janine as my future bride was the hair colour being a natural blonde without a hint of brunette, I have been disappointed that she has allowed the colour to be transformed into a darker more brunette hue after the birth of each of our wonderful children. I am not being unreasonable in this regard as it was clearly stipulated that artificial blondes or natural brunettes were totally unacceptable to me yet my wife neglected to maintain her hair colour naturally.
The attached photographs will clearly highlight this deterioration not only in terms of colour for which I take umbrage but also regarding the texture for which I not expecting credit to be passed. Based upon the initial criterion, this complaint is deemed to be fair.
Note how this article has deteriorated over the past 30 years.
I give no credence to Janine’s counter claim that over the same period that my beard & hair has deteriorated from luxuriant and brown to sparse and grey. This point is deemed to be irrelevant. As the acquirer, I have the right in terms of the Act to redress in terms of defective goods and not vice versa. This is tantamount to one’s other purchases having a counter claim against one. This is ludicrous. As an example, the kicking of a washing machine in a rage does not entitle the machine to stop working. As my goods and chattels, its rights are equivalent to that of a slave viz precisely none. Similarly in this instance too.
There is another matter which is of an extremely delicate nature. So please treat it in the strictest confidence. It relates to what was previously referred to as conjugal rights, now more commonly called sex by the plebs. This term is both too explicit and demeaning of the act. Being prudish by nature I will henceforth take to referring to the sex act by an appropriate euphemism such as nookie even though a more colloquial term such as bonking might be more appropriate.
During the aforementioned two year trial period, the said woman, my future wife, was unable to keep her hands off me. If the truth be told, I had to fight her off me on numerous occasions as the frequency, duration and intensity of such coital sessions was too intense.
Based solely upon the Janine’s ability to satisfy my needs over this two year courtship period, the momentous decision was taken to make it a more permanent arrangement. Hence my intention to formalise the acquisition of a spouse was taken based upon the superb experience with the expectation of many years of excellent usage.
This expectation has proved to be unfounded especially after the birth of our children. Out of the blue, Janine developed mechanical problems mainly in the form of headaches but often other issues were mentioned such as tiredness and other nebulous complaints. Whatever happened to performing one’s duty for King and Country?
I should immediately have read the warning signs but as she had served me faithfully I gave her a second chance which I now regret. The fact that this grace period was 25 years relates not to condonation of non-performance but rather to an expectation of improvement being forthcoming. This was to prove to be a Fool’s Errand.
Based upon these two serious breaches in performance, I hereby demand recompense in terms of the said Act.
Yours sincerely