GROUP ACTION AGAINST NHRA AND OTHERS/ SHEER COURAGE

Misleading actions (ie) = SEE B

5.—(1) A commercial practice is a misleading action if it satisfies the conditions in either paragraph (2) or paragraph (3).

(2) A commercial practice satisfies the conditions of this paragraph—

(a)if it contains false information and is therefore untruthful in relation to any of the matters in paragraph (4) or if it or its overall presentation in any way deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer in relation to any of the matters in that paragraph, even if the information is factually correct; and

(b)it causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise.

Gee, well done Done Don.
Who needs anyone else?
(tu)

Blond, cited English law above but see here seems SAF had adopted same:
www.netlawman.co.uk/acts/consumer-protec...regulations-2008.php

thanx to all for your response will make a few calls tomorrow, will keep you posted , it maybe likely that we might have a case with the consumer protection act, but will find out more, and maybe the new company act.

If there are persons who would like to get involved some or other way please inform.

it can be come interesting, might be a way to test new consumer act, who knows?

just double check the new consumer law in SAF is as extensive as UK, don't really know, you may come up short with regards to this as it has only recently been adopted.

The NHA receive no revenue from consumers.......I think that might be a clue?

counterclue...

“product” means any goods or service and includes immovable property, rights and obligations;

“professional diligence” means the standard of special skill and care which a trader may reasonably be expected to exercise towards consumers which is commensurate with either—

(a) honest market practice in the trader’s field of activity, or
(b) the general principle of good faith in the trader’s field of activity;

see terms

Just thought of something not so good. If the magistrate awarded you the damages, and I think he would, he would probably award you only R500, this being your actual sufferance (your punt @ 50/1) and not the R25000 you would have won. Mmmmmmm.

I'm no expert and it has been decades since I studied law, but I'd guess that amongst the problems which you would have with any legal action are that:
a) Sheer Courage would have won the race anyway, had his previous form been disclosed and/or published. This is not like a doping or the carrying of an incorrect weight, which could have affected the horse's performance.
b) You'd need to prove that you would not have backed Baron of Breedon if you'd been aware of Sheer Courage's past form. In a court of law, I'd reckon this is downright impossible.

I could be wrong, and there's probably more, but I reckon that's the end of any legal recourse right there.

one question is the trainer of this horse getting off with just his share of the winning stake being refunded?

You guys are farting agaist thunder and no way will a guy like De Broglio get involved in this mess(if anything he will be on the side of the NHRA). The NHRA will survive this little blemish like they have done with all the other cock-ups exposed on the various websites. If you take them on they will simply tie you up with every legal wrangle they can find and exhaust you and your funds as their benefactors have deeper pockets and with all the revenue that us sick MUGGS keep on paying over to them. So you boycott the tote, they increase levies on the Bookies, they will always win. Where is Larry Wainstien and co, they were going to get to the bottom of this, NOT it is already under the carpet. No winners in this saga, not even the astute punter that got the 14/1 he had a punt on a whim, he can fire bigger bullets on his lucky number or his favorite Jock.

No conspiracy here just -SHEER INCOMPETANCE.