Pretoria Small Claims Court awards R650 refund for kettle after replacement offer

The Small Claims Court in Pretoria ordered Daniel Jacobs to refund Lerato Maseko the R650 she paid for a kettle. Maseko had sought her money back after reporting that the kettle switched off before the water boiled; Jacobs had offered a replacement instead.

The court found that Maseko had proved the kettle was faulty and had not accepted the replacement. It awarded no additional amount.

The receipt established the purchase and price, but not the kettle’s condition. On the fault, the court relied on Maseko’s specific account that she was present when it switched off before the water boiled.

Those saved answers were relayed by counsel, not independently verified or given as admitted witness testimony. The court recognised that they carried less assurance than a test report or direct testimony, but found them consistent with the complaint. Jacobs had not tested the kettle and offered no contrary observation or report.

The initial WhatsApp exchange showed that Jacobs offered a replacement and Maseko replied that she would think about it. The court found that this was not a clear acceptance. It also accepted her account that she later rejected the offer and requested a refund, while recognising that no timestamped message established when that request was received.

The replacement offer showed an attempt to address the complaint, but did not itself prove either that the kettle was faulty or that it worked. Nor did the record establish that a replacement was delivered or a refund paid. The court limited the award to the proven purchase price.

Maseko’s side argued that she had paid for a working kettle but received one that did not function as expected. She said she considered a replacement without agreeing to take one and wanted the full purchase price returned.

Jacobs asked the court to deny or reduce the refund and consider his replacement offer as a practical response. He said he had initially understood Maseko’s reply as acceptance, but acknowledged that it did not clearly say yes. He also accepted that he had no independent evidence proving the kettle worked or that she accepted a replacement.

Maseko’s account was that she returned to the shop and requested a refund after the kettle switched off. Jacobs offered a replacement; she later messaged that she would consider it and, according to her account, declined it the next day and again asked for a refund. She could not recall the exact dates.

The judgment resolved the claim on the evidence presented. It made no findings about other customers or Jacobs’s broader business practices.