{"id":47579,"date":"2026-09-08T10:30:18","date_gmt":"2026-09-08T08:30:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/stbb.co.za\/dev2\/?p=47579"},"modified":"2026-09-08T10:34:19","modified_gmt":"2026-09-08T08:34:19","slug":"all-about-property-can-businesses-avoid-consumer-protection-act-promenade-centre-judgment-limits-corporate-structuring_cpa","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stbb.co.za\/dev2\/all-about-property-can-businesses-avoid-consumer-protection-act-promenade-centre-judgment-limits-corporate-structuring_cpa\/","title":{"rendered":"All About Property | Can businesses avoid the Consumer Protection Act? The Promenade Centre<\/em> judgment and the limits of corporate structuring"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Supreme Court of Appeal\u2019s judgment in the seminal case of Dr Darren Levin Inc. v Promenade Centre<\/em><\/u><\/a> addresses a recurring question at the intersection of commercial contracting and consumer protection: Can a supplier structure a transaction through a juristic person, instead of a natural person, to avoid the application of the Consumer Protection Act (\u2018the CPA\u2019)? On the particular facts before it, the Court held that parties may arrange their commercial affairs to escape the application of the CPA \u2013 and that merely contracting with a large entity does not invalidate the resulting agreement.<\/p>\n

The factual setting<\/strong><\/p>\n

Initially, Dr Darren Levin leased premises at the Promenade Centre in his personal capacity. When he sought to continue his medical practice at the property, Promenade offered him alternative premises. During the negotiations, however, Promenade informed him that it no longer wished to enter into commercial leases with individuals. Instead, Levin was required to establish a juristic person through which the lease agreement would be concluded. Dr Darren Levin Inc. (\u2018DDL\u2019) was subsequently incorporated, and a ten-year lease was entered into between Promenade and DDL.<\/p>\n

When DDL defaulted on its payment obligations, Promenade cancelled the lease and instituted legal proceedings in the Western Cape High Court. DDL and Levin counterclaimed for a declaration that the lease was void and unenforceable under sections 51(1)(a)(i), 51(1)(b)(ii), 51(3), and 4(5) of the CPA, alternatively on the basis that it was contrary to public policy under the common law. The High Court found in favour of Promenade and the matter was brought on appeal.<\/p>\n

According to STBB Director and experienced litigator, Martin Bey<\/u><\/a>, the \u2018factual nexus makes the appellants\u2019 argument attractive at first glance. Clearly, the evidence established that Promenade changed its position during negotiations precisely because it did not want the CPA to apply.\u2019 While the SCA accepted that the initial negotiations could be characterised, in the language of the CPA, as having taken place between Levin as a \u2018consumer\u2019 and Promenade as a \u2018supplier\u2019, \u2018this does not determine the legal character of the transaction ultimately concluded\u2019, says the Cape Town-based attorney<\/u><\/a>.<\/p>\n

The statutory starting point: Section 5 of the CPA<\/strong><\/p>\n

For STBB\u2019s Managing Director and real estate attorney, Darren Brander<\/u><\/a>, determining whether conduct flouts the purposes of the CPA first requires establishing the protective scope of the Act. Under section 5(1)(a), the CPA<\/u><\/a> applies to every transaction occurring within South Africa, subject to defined statutory exclusions. Specifically, section 5(2)(b) of the Act excludes a transaction in which the consumer is a juristic person whose asset value or annual turnover equals or exceeds the threshold determined under section 6, namely R2 million.<\/p>\n

\u2018On the facts, DDL had an asset value or annual turnover of at least that amount and is therefore a \u201clarge juristic person\u201d to which the CPA does not apply,\u2019 notes Brander<\/u><\/a>. This distinction is particularly important because the appellants\u2019 case \u2018effectively sought to carry the consumer status of Dr Levin into the separate contractual relationship between Promenade and DDL,\u2019 he contends. The SCA, however, did not accept their approach.<\/p>\n

Why section 51 of the CPA did not apply to the transaction<\/strong><\/p>\n

The appellants relied principally on section 51. Section 51(1)(a)(i) of the CPA prohibits a supplier from concluding a transaction or agreement subject to a term or condition if its general intention or effect is to defeat the purposes and policy of the Act. In addition, section 51(1)(b) similarly proscribes certain terms or conditions that purport to waive or deprive a consumer of rights under the CPA. Section 51(3) accordingly provides that a purported transaction, agreement, term, provision, or condition is void to the extent that it contravenes the section.<\/p>\n

While the appellants accepted that there was no term in the lease requiring Levin to form a juristic person, they nevertheless argued that section 51 prohibits what they described as an \u2018extra-contractual condition\u2019 imposed before the agreement was concluded.<\/p>\n

The SCA rejected that construction. Referring to the principles governing statutory interpretation, the Court emphasised the importance of text, context, and purpose, with the language of the provision characterised as the \u2018inevitable point of departure\u2019.<\/p>\n

As Bey<\/u><\/a> explains: \u2018Section 51 regulates a transaction or agreement that is made subject to a prohibited term or condition. It does not, on the wording considered by the Court, create a general prohibition<\/em> against a supplier deciding during negotiations which category of contracting party it will accept.\u2019<\/p>\n

The Court stressed that Promenade and Levin did not contract. Indeed, the lease was concluded between Promenade and DDL, and it was not made subject to the alleged condition in the sense contemplated by section 51. The SCA thus expressly rejected the contention that section 51 applies to non-contractual or extra-contractual terms and conditions of the kind relied upon by the appellants.<\/p>\n

For Brander<\/u><\/a>, that distinction is more than semantic. \u2018A requirement imposed as part of the process of deciding whether to contract is not automatically transformed into a contractual term simply because the supplier will not proceed without it,\u2019 the commercial property lawyer<\/u><\/a> notes.<\/p>\n

Section 4(5) does not operate independently<\/strong><\/p>\n

In dealings with a consumer in the ordinary course of business, section 4(5) of the CPA prohibits conduct contrary to, or calculated to frustrate or defeat, the purposes and policy of the CPA<\/u><\/a>, as well as unconscionable, misleading, or deceptive conduct.<\/p>\n

The SCA, however, differentiated between the mechanisms in section 4 and the substantive rights created elsewhere in the Act. Critically, section 4 of the CPA does not itself confer substantive rights.<\/p>\n

As Bey<\/u><\/a> observes: \u2018The Court was careful not to allow section 4(5) to become a general purpose route to invalidity. The fact that conduct is said to be contrary to the spirit or purpose of the Act does not eliminate the need to identify the substantive statutory right or prohibition that applies.\u2019 In practice, \u2018a party challenging a commercial lease under the CPA must do more than point to a general legislative purpose,\u2019 he concludes.<\/p>\n

Vulnerability: The importance of context<\/strong><\/p>\n

At its core, the CPA seeks to promote and advance the social and economic welfare of consumers<\/u><\/a>, including by reducing disadvantages experienced by low-income and vulnerable consumers and protecting consumers against unconscionable, unfair, and otherwise unreasonable trade practices.<\/p>\n

In considering this legislative purpose, the SCA nevertheless held that Levin\u2019s personal circumstances did not engage the particular vulnerabilities that the CPA seeks to address. The Court described him as a private medical practitioner practising in an affluent suburb, who was neither a low-income nor vulnerable consumer, and found no evident disparity in negotiating power between him and Promenade\u2019s representative. Crucially, it emphasised that the transaction was a commercial lease not a residential one<\/u><\/a>\u00a0under the CPA.<\/p>\n

\u2018The judgment recognises commercial freedom, but it does so in a fact-specific context. The finding on vulnerability is not incidental \u2013 it\u2019s part of the factual foundation for the Court\u2019s conclusion that the first appellant was not a consumer requiring protection from the particular commercial arrangement under consideration,\u2019 argues Bey<\/u><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Brander<\/u><\/a> agrees. \u2018The ruling evinces a carefully drawn proposition. Merely contracting with a juristic person does not make an agreement void. On the facts, Promenade\u2019s decision to contract with DDL rather than Levin did not constitute an unfair business practice from which he required statutory protection,\u2019 explains the Cape Town-based conveyancer<\/u><\/a>.<\/p>\n

The public policy question<\/strong><\/p>\n

The appellants\u2019 common law challenge proceeded from broadly the same premise: If corporate structuring is adopted specifically to avoid the protective provisions of the CPA, could that make the resulting lease contrary to public policy?<\/p>\n

The SCA accepted that this possibility cannot be dismissed in the abstract. It recognised that there may be circumstances in which structuring a transaction to escape the application of the CPA could offend public policy, particularly where an agreement is disguised to conceal its true nature.<\/p>\n

However, the lease did not fail to reflect the true essence of the agreement between Promenade and DDL. There was accordingly no basis on which to declare the commercial lease \u2013 or its enforcement \u2013 prima facie<\/em> contrary to public policy.<\/p>\n

\u2018This is the juncture at which legitimate corporate structuring ends and sham arrangements begin. The SCA did not immunise every transaction involving a company; it found that this particular lease reflected the true agreement between the parties,\u2019 contends Brander<\/u><\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u2018From a litigation perspective, evidence concerning the substance of the transaction therefore remains important. If the corporate entity is purely disguising the real agreement, the common law analysis may be very different,\u2019 notes Bey<\/u><\/a>.<\/p>\n

An unanswered question: What if the consumer is vulnerable?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Crucially, the SCA explicitly stated that the present matter \u2013 concerning a commercial lease with a non-vulnerable tenant \u2013 is distinct from efforts to circumvent the CPA in the context of contracting with a vulnerable consumer. The Court thus declined to consider the potential legal implications in instances where a tenant falls within the category of persons the Act is designed to safeguard.<\/p>\n

For Bey<\/u><\/a>, this is critical for future litigation. \u2018The SCA deliberately left open what happens when the person being excluded from CPA protection is genuinely vulnerable and the corporate structure operates to remove protections Parliament intended that person to enjoy,\u2019 observes the experienced property litigator<\/u><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Practical takeaways for businesses<\/strong><\/p>\n

For Brander<\/u><\/a>, the significance of the judgment lies in the distinction between legitimate structuring and impermissible circumvention. While the ruling confirms that the deliberate choice of a juristic person as contracting party does not, by itself, constitute an unlawful evasion of the CPA, it should not be reduced to the proposition that businesses can simply \u2018opt out\u2019 of the Act. \u2018The judgment\u2019s construction is narrower: The SCA\u2019s reasoning hinges on the nature of the contracting parties, the commercial context, the absence of vulnerability, and the substance of the resulting agreement,\u2019 says Brander<\/u><\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u2018It goes without saying that commercial landlords are entitled to contract with whomever they like. However, businesses should adopt a measure of caution. The ruling is not a greenlight for shirking the CPA\u2019s protective scope,\u2019 he argues. To that end, \u2018businesses must identify the contracting party and the CPA\u2019s application at the outset and avoid any arrangements that disguise the true nature of the transaction,\u2019 advises the real estate lawyer<\/u><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Bey<\/u><\/a> firmly agrees. \u2018The risk does not arise simply because a party prefers<\/em> a corporate tenant. It arises where the factual matrix supports an argument that the corporate structure is being utilised in a manner \u2013 as a fa\u00e7ade \u2013 that undermines the provisions of the CPA and common law,\u2019 concludes the STBB Cape Town Director<\/u><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Final remarks<\/strong><\/p>\n

In the context of consumer protection and commercial property transactions, the judgment endorses the view that a genuine commercial lease agreement<\/u><\/a> concluded with a large juristic person is not rendered void purely because the supplier intentionally chose that structure to sidestep the application of the Act. At the same time, the SCA expressly reserved determining how that principle would operate where the tenant is a vulnerable consumer. For commercial property stakeholders, this unresolved question may ultimately prove just as significant.<\/p>\n

For expert legal guidance with all commercial property-related matters, contact our experienced team of attorneys<\/u><\/a> today<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

This content is protected by copyright. If you wish to copy or reproduce our content on your own platform or website, please ensure that proper credit is given to STBB, along with including a link to this article.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Supreme Court of Appeal\u2019s judgment in the seminal case of Dr Darren Levin Inc. v Promenade Centre addresses a recurring question at the intersection of commercial contracting and consumer protection: Can a supplier structure a transaction through a juristic<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":364,"featured_media":47573,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[192,107,98,93,137],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-47579","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-all-about-property","category-articles-published-commercial-property-law","category-articles-published-litigation-and-dispute-resolution","category-articles-published-property-law-and-conveyancing","category-latest"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nAll About Property | Can businesses avoid the Consumer Protection Act? The Promenade Centre judgment and the limits of corporate structuring - STBB<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Can a supplier structure a transaction through a juristic person, instead of a natural person, to avoid the CPA?\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/stbb.co.za\/dev2\/all-about-property-can-businesses-avoid-consumer-protection-act-promenade-centre-judgment-limits-corporate-structuring_cpa\/\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Samantha Smith\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/stbb.co.za\\\/dev2\\\/all-about-property-can-businesses-avoid-consumer-protection-act-promenade-centre-judgment-limits-corporate-structuring_cpa\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/stbb.co.za\\\/dev2\\\/all-about-property-can-businesses-avoid-consumer-protection-act-promenade-centre-judgment-limits-corporate-structuring_cpa\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Samantha Smith\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/stbb.co.za\\\/dev2\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/805b4884d2d0620da8c730a20588b52a\"},\"headline\":\"All About Property | Can businesses avoid the Consumer Protection Act? The Promenade Centre judgment and the limits of corporate structuring\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-09-08T08:30:18+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-09-08T08:34:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/stbb.co.za\\\/dev2\\\/all-about-property-can-businesses-avoid-consumer-protection-act-promenade-centre-judgment-limits-corporate-structuring_cpa\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1894,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/stbb.co.za\\\/dev2\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/stbb.co.za\\\/dev2\\\/all-about-property-can-businesses-avoid-consumer-protection-act-promenade-centre-judgment-limits-corporate-structuring_cpa\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/stbb.co.za\\\/dev2\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/STBB_AAP_September_2026_s1a.png\",\"articleSection\":[\"All About Property\",\"Articles Published - Commercial Property Law\",\"Articles Published - Litigation and Dispute Resolution\",\"Articles Published - Property Law and Conveyancing\",\"Latest\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-ZA\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/stbb.co.za\\\/dev2\\\/all-about-property-can-businesses-avoid-consumer-protection-act-promenade-centre-judgment-limits-corporate-structuring_cpa\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/stbb.co.za\\\/dev2\\\/all-about-property-can-businesses-avoid-consumer-protection-act-promenade-centre-judgment-limits-corporate-structuring_cpa\\\/\",\"name\":\"All About Property | Can businesses avoid the Consumer Protection Act? The Promenade Centre judgment and the limits of corporate structuring - STBB\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/stbb.co.za\\\/dev2\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/stbb.co.za\\\/dev2\\\/all-about-property-can-businesses-avoid-consumer-protection-act-promenade-centre-judgment-limits-corporate-structuring_cpa\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/stbb.co.za\\\/dev2\\\/all-about-property-can-businesses-avoid-consumer-protection-act-promenade-centre-judgment-limits-corporate-structuring_cpa\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/stbb.co.za\\\/dev2\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/STBB_AAP_September_2026_s1a.png\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-09-08T08:30:18+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-09-08T08:34:19+00:00\",\"description\":\"Can a supplier structure a transaction through a juristic person, instead of a natural person, to avoid the CPA?\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/stbb.co.za\\\/dev2\\\/all-about-property-can-businesses-avoid-consumer-protection-act-promenade-centre-judgment-limits-corporate-structuring_cpa\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-ZA\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/stbb.co.za\\\/dev2\\\/all-about-property-can-businesses-avoid-consumer-protection-act-promenade-centre-judgment-limits-corporate-structuring_cpa\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-ZA\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/stbb.co.za\\\/dev2\\\/all-about-property-can-businesses-avoid-consumer-protection-act-promenade-centre-judgment-limits-corporate-structuring_cpa\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/stbb.co.za\\\/dev2\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/STBB_AAP_September_2026_s1a.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/stbb.co.za\\\/dev2\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/09\\\/STBB_AAP_September_2026_s1a.png\",\"width\":660,\"height\":230,\"caption\":\"Businesses avoid the CPA commercial property\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/stbb.co.za\\\/dev2\\\/all-about-property-can-businesses-avoid-consumer-protection-act-promenade-centre-judgment-limits-corporate-structuring_cpa\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/stbb.co.za\\\/dev2\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"All About Property\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/stbb.co.za\\\/dev2\\\/category\\\/all-about-property\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"All About Property | Can businesses avoid the Consumer Protection Act? The Promenade Centre judgment and the limits of corporate structuring\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/stbb.co.za\\\/dev2\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/stbb.co.za\\\/dev2\\\/\",\"name\":\"STBB\",\"description\":\"Welcome to STBB - We deal with every legal matter\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/stbb.co.za\\\/dev2\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/stbb.co.za\\\/dev2\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-ZA\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/stbb.co.za\\\/dev2\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"STBB\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/stbb.co.za\\\/dev2\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-ZA\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/stbb.co.za\\\/dev2\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/stbb.co.za\\\/dev2\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/STBB_logo_2025.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/stbb.co.za\\\/dev2\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/STBB_logo_2025.png\",\"width\":218,\"height\":66,\"caption\":\"STBB\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/stbb.co.za\\\/dev2\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.linkedin.com\\\/company\\\/thebigsmallfirm\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/stbb.co.za\\\/dev2\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/805b4884d2d0620da8c730a20588b52a\",\"name\":\"Samantha Smith\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-ZA\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/7f71900525e21469f789274d11fb4a6ecabdf5fd8022613ca764c6073933f3cb?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/7f71900525e21469f789274d11fb4a6ecabdf5fd8022613ca764c6073933f3cb?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/7f71900525e21469f789274d11fb4a6ecabdf5fd8022613ca764c6073933f3cb?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Samantha Smith\"},\"description\":\"Dr Samantha Smith is a creative Attorney holding a BSocSci, LLB, LLM, and PhD (Law) from UCT.\u00a0 She leads\u00a0content marketing & strategy across STBB's channels, thought leadership, SEO, and legal marketing collateral.\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/stbb.co.za\\\/dev2\\\/author\\\/samanthasstbb-co-za\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"All About Property | Can businesses avoid the Consumer Protection Act? The Promenade Centre judgment and the limits of corporate structuring - STBB","description":"Can a supplier structure a transaction through a juristic person, instead of a natural person, to avoid the CPA?","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/stbb.co.za\/dev2\/all-about-property-can-businesses-avoid-consumer-protection-act-promenade-centre-judgment-limits-corporate-structuring_cpa\/","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Samantha Smith","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/stbb.co.za\/dev2\/all-about-property-can-businesses-avoid-consumer-protection-act-promenade-centre-judgment-limits-corporate-structuring_cpa\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/stbb.co.za\/dev2\/all-about-property-can-businesses-avoid-consumer-protection-act-promenade-centre-judgment-limits-corporate-structuring_cpa\/"},"author":{"name":"Samantha Smith","@id":"https:\/\/stbb.co.za\/dev2\/#\/schema\/person\/805b4884d2d0620da8c730a20588b52a"},"headline":"All About Property | Can businesses avoid the Consumer Protection Act? The Promenade Centre judgment and the limits of corporate structuring","datePublished":"2026-09-08T08:30:18+00:00","dateModified":"2026-09-08T08:34:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/stbb.co.za\/dev2\/all-about-property-can-businesses-avoid-consumer-protection-act-promenade-centre-judgment-limits-corporate-structuring_cpa\/"},"wordCount":1894,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/stbb.co.za\/dev2\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/stbb.co.za\/dev2\/all-about-property-can-businesses-avoid-consumer-protection-act-promenade-centre-judgment-limits-corporate-structuring_cpa\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/stbb.co.za\/dev2\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/STBB_AAP_September_2026_s1a.png","articleSection":["All About Property","Articles Published - Commercial Property Law","Articles Published - Litigation and Dispute Resolution","Articles Published - Property Law and Conveyancing","Latest"],"inLanguage":"en-ZA"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/stbb.co.za\/dev2\/all-about-property-can-businesses-avoid-consumer-protection-act-promenade-centre-judgment-limits-corporate-structuring_cpa\/","url":"https:\/\/stbb.co.za\/dev2\/all-about-property-can-businesses-avoid-consumer-protection-act-promenade-centre-judgment-limits-corporate-structuring_cpa\/","name":"All About Property | Can businesses avoid the Consumer Protection Act? The Promenade Centre judgment and the limits of corporate structuring - STBB","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/stbb.co.za\/dev2\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/stbb.co.za\/dev2\/all-about-property-can-businesses-avoid-consumer-protection-act-promenade-centre-judgment-limits-corporate-structuring_cpa\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/stbb.co.za\/dev2\/all-about-property-can-businesses-avoid-consumer-protection-act-promenade-centre-judgment-limits-corporate-structuring_cpa\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/stbb.co.za\/dev2\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/STBB_AAP_September_2026_s1a.png","datePublished":"2026-09-08T08:30:18+00:00","dateModified":"2026-09-08T08:34:19+00:00","description":"Can a supplier structure a transaction through a juristic person, instead of a natural person, to avoid the CPA?","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/stbb.co.za\/dev2\/all-about-property-can-businesses-avoid-consumer-protection-act-promenade-centre-judgment-limits-corporate-structuring_cpa\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-ZA","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/stbb.co.za\/dev2\/all-about-property-can-businesses-avoid-consumer-protection-act-promenade-centre-judgment-limits-corporate-structuring_cpa\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-ZA","@id":"https:\/\/stbb.co.za\/dev2\/all-about-property-can-businesses-avoid-consumer-protection-act-promenade-centre-judgment-limits-corporate-structuring_cpa\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/stbb.co.za\/dev2\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/STBB_AAP_September_2026_s1a.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/stbb.co.za\/dev2\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/STBB_AAP_September_2026_s1a.png","width":660,"height":230,"caption":"Businesses avoid the CPA commercial property"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/stbb.co.za\/dev2\/all-about-property-can-businesses-avoid-consumer-protection-act-promenade-centre-judgment-limits-corporate-structuring_cpa\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/stbb.co.za\/dev2\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"All About Property","item":"https:\/\/stbb.co.za\/dev2\/category\/all-about-property\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"All About Property | Can businesses avoid the Consumer Protection Act? The Promenade Centre judgment and the limits of corporate structuring"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/stbb.co.za\/dev2\/#website","url":"https:\/\/stbb.co.za\/dev2\/","name":"STBB","description":"Welcome to STBB - We deal with every legal matter","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/stbb.co.za\/dev2\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/stbb.co.za\/dev2\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-ZA"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/stbb.co.za\/dev2\/#organization","name":"STBB","url":"https:\/\/stbb.co.za\/dev2\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-ZA","@id":"https:\/\/stbb.co.za\/dev2\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/stbb.co.za\/dev2\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/STBB_logo_2025.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/stbb.co.za\/dev2\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/STBB_logo_2025.png","width":218,"height":66,"caption":"STBB"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/stbb.co.za\/dev2\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/thebigsmallfirm"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/stbb.co.za\/dev2\/#\/schema\/person\/805b4884d2d0620da8c730a20588b52a","name":"Samantha Smith","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-ZA","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7f71900525e21469f789274d11fb4a6ecabdf5fd8022613ca764c6073933f3cb?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7f71900525e21469f789274d11fb4a6ecabdf5fd8022613ca764c6073933f3cb?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7f71900525e21469f789274d11fb4a6ecabdf5fd8022613ca764c6073933f3cb?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Samantha Smith"},"description":"Dr Samantha Smith is a creative Attorney holding a BSocSci, LLB, LLM, and PhD (Law) from UCT.\u00a0 She leads\u00a0content marketing & strategy across STBB's channels, thought leadership, SEO, and legal marketing collateral.","url":"https:\/\/stbb.co.za\/dev2\/author\/samanthasstbb-co-za\/"}]}},"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/stbb.co.za\/dev2\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/STBB_AAP_September_2026_s1a.png","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/stbb.co.za\/dev2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47579","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/stbb.co.za\/dev2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/stbb.co.za\/dev2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stbb.co.za\/dev2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/364"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stbb.co.za\/dev2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=47579"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/stbb.co.za\/dev2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47579\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":47612,"href":"https:\/\/stbb.co.za\/dev2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/47579\/revisions\/47612"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stbb.co.za\/dev2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/47573"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/stbb.co.za\/dev2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=47579"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stbb.co.za\/dev2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=47579"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stbb.co.za\/dev2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=47579"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}