Jump to content

Disappointed in coach Swen Lauer - swenlauer.com


MarcL

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 738
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Posted

20 odd pages of increasing evidence?

Worst part is back on page 2 or 3, I made a comment about my friend and improved skills. Now I know she didn't even use most of the lessons...

Posted

20 odd pages of increasing evidence?

 

More smoke means higher chance there's a fire. So if i understand that initial response of his, he held the OPs refund to ransom by demanding OPs post be removed as a precondition to a refund. This is at the risk of major reputation damage if the OP does not acquiesce. Essentially, he is saying his reputation can be bought for 600 euros. 

Cheap.

 

Now more similar tales of woe are emanating from the cycling community. Starting to reek of 'Swen D lauer' (afrikaans speakers might getit)

Posted

I agree that he failed to deliver the service that he should've but I disagree that there wasn't a contract. The OP requested a training plan that was meant to be regulated by Mr Lauer, to which he (Lauer) agreed and in turn provided the OP with a cost therefor which he paid in full. The way I understand SA law this is a contract and Mr Lauer is, imho, in breach because he failed to regulate, monitor and update the OP's training plan for which he was paid.

 

But since I'm not a lawyer, I think we would need a lawyer such as Harryn (by way of example) to weight in on this.

You are spot on!

Posted

You are spot on!

Thanks! Nice to know. Am I correct in thinking that the CPA applies in this instance or is there another law or set of laws that apply ito the contractual agreement between the OP and Mr Lauer?
Posted

Thanks! Nice to know. Am I correct in thinking that the CPA applies in this instance or is there another law or set of laws that apply ito the contractual agreement between the OP and Mr Lauer?

Swen is a supplier of services in the Republic, falling within the ordinary scope of his business, and the OP is a Consumer contemplated in the act. That brings the CPA into applicability. Section 64 deals specifically with prepaid services. In a nutshell , that section stipulates that the money is still the property of the OP until Sven is entitled to make a charge against it, which he may do monthly. The kicker is that he has to be providing the service, otherwise he has to refund the money. (Disclaimer this is a very brief summary / interpretation of quite a lengthy section)

 

The OP has remedies both under the CPA, as well the Common Law.

 

It would actually be interesting to see what, if anything, would come of a complaint to the NCC. Last I heard they were so snowed under that they were totally sterilized - I don't know if they since have their house in order,but I would not put money on it

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Settings My Forum Content My Followed Content Forum Settings Ad Messages My Ads My Favourites My Saved Alerts My Pay Deals Help Logout