At the public hearings of the Consumer Protection Bill in Cape Town last week, the deputy director-general of consumer and corporate regulation, Zodwa Ntuli, unpacked the definitions of “consumer” and “supplier” as they have been used in the Bill.

The definition of a “supplier” used in the Consumer Protection Bill encompasses more than just a retailer.  It also applies to any public or private entity that promotes or supplies goods and services to consumers.

The Bill defines a “consumer” as anyone who buys goods or services, and also third party users, beneficiaries and recipients of goods and services.  The definition also includes franchisees that currently have very little protection through a voluntary industry code of conduct.

The inclusion of franchisees in the definition of consumer received significant criticism from business shareholders, for example Pick n Pay said that this aspect of the definition would undermine the entire franchise model of business.  According to an article in the Business Day on 11 September 2008, Ntuli defended the decision to include franchisees, arguing that franchise agreements had to be more flexible and franchisees must be given the choice as to where to purchase their goods on a competitive basis.  She also stated that the Bill did not interfere with the quality standards required of franchisees.

What are your thoughts on these two definitions?