Commentary
Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr — Motus v Wentzel commentary
Sources
- primary url https://www.cliffedekkerhofmeyr.com/news/publications/2021/Corporate/Corporate-and-Commercial-Alert-23-June-2021-Not-every-faulty-Bluetooth-should-have-its-day-in-court-a-discussion-of-consumer-protection-in-Motus-Corporation-Pty-Ltd-and-another-v-Wentzel.html
- wayback url https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://www.cliffedekkerhofmeyr.com/news/publications/2021/Corporate/Corporate-and-Commercial-Alert-23-June-2021-Not-every-faulty-Bluetooth-should-have-its-day-in-court-a-discussion-of-consumer-protection-in-Motus-Corporation-Pty-Ltd-and-another-v-Wentzel.html
Used on the site
- src/data/content.ts — CLAUSES[12] (high-court-jurisdiction) Motus angle — supports the obiter characterisation of s 69(d) reading See on homepage →
Full content not reproduced (publisher copyright). Short summary:
The article analyses the SCA’s decision in Motus Corporation v Wentzel [2021] ZASCA 40, focusing on s 56 of the CPA (the statutory warranty) rather than s 69 (enforcement). On s 69(d), CDH treats the SCA’s discussion as guidance only — corroborating the site’s obiter framing.
Use: if link rot takes the original URL down, archived copy can be fetched from web.archive.org.