Kago's Faulty Kettle
Kago buys a new electric kettle from a local appliance shop in Francistown for P450. The sales assistant says it is 'the best model' and gives Kago a receipt. After three weeks, the kettle stops heating and the switch sparks. Kago returns to the shop with the kettle but has lost the receipt. The manager refuses to help, saying, 'No receipt, no refund. You must have used it wrongly.' Kago admits that he sometimes filled the kettle above the maximum line, but only once or twice. The shop offers to repair the kettle for P180 and says a replacement is out of the question. Kago is angry and wants to report the shop. He has a bank SMS showing the payment and a photo of the kettle's serial number matching the box.
1. Identify Kago's consumer rights and responsibilities in this case. Explain how his lost receipt affects his claim.
Read the worked answer
Rights: Under consumer protection principles, Kago has the right to goods of good quality that are safe and fit for purpose, the right to information, the right to fair and honest dealing, and the right to redress. A kettle that sparks after three weeks is unlikely to be of merchantable quality.
Responsibilities: He must use the goods according to instructions, keep proof of purchase, report the fault promptly, give the seller a chance to remedy it, and be honest about how he used it. He admits overfilling, which may be misuse and should not be hidden.
Effect of the lost receipt: A receipt is strong proof, but it is not the only proof. The bank SMS and the serial-number photo can link the purchase to the shop and to that kettle. The shop cannot rely automatically on 'no receipt, no refund' when other evidence exists. However, Kago's overfilling may reduce the shop's liability if it caused the fault. The key judgement is causation: did the overfilling cause the sparking, or is there a manufacturing defect? The shop should inspect the kettle before deciding.
2. Evaluate whether the shop's response is fair and lawful.
Read the worked answer
The shop's blanket refusal is not fair. It should examine the kettle and establish the cause before demanding payment or refusing help. Consumer law generally requires goods to be of acceptable quality, and a seller must provide a remedy if they are not. The offer to repair for P180 shifts the full cost to Kago before any proper assessment has been made.
A repair charge could be fair if Kago's overfilling caused the damage. But saying 'you must have used it wrongly' is an assumption, not proof. The shop also has a responsibility to explain the warranty terms and to treat the customer respectfully.
The fair outcome is: a free inspection; if there is a manufacturing defect, a free repair or replacement; if misuse caused the fault, a written quote and Kago's choice to accept or decline. The shop should not refuse merely because the receipt is lost when alternative proof exists. Its response is therefore partly understandable in wanting proof, but unreasonable in rejecting all evidence and assuming misuse.
3. Recommend the steps Kago should take, in order, to resolve the complaint.
Read the worked answer
- Put the complaint in writing to the manager. Include the date, model, serial number, bank SMS, photo and a clear requested remedy: repair, replacement or refund.
- Ask for the inspection result in writing and for the warranty terms. This forces a clear decision.
- Do not authorise a paid repair yet. Keep the kettle and any packaging as evidence.
- Escalate if refused. Give the shop a short deadline (for example seven days) and then contact the Competition and Consumer Authority with copies of the evidence.
- Use a formal process such as small claims or a consumer tribunal if the amount justifies it.
- Stay calm and factual. Do not post abusive comments or make threats.
The reasoning is that written records create a paper trail and reduce the chance of the shop changing its story. Going straight to social media may feel satisfying, but it does not preserve evidence or produce a remedy. Escalation should follow the shop's internal process first, then the regulator.