{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020070838252656435, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014167650531286895, 'mean_word_length': 4.848275862068966, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Price Discretions and Consumers’ Right to Disclosure and Information in Terms of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008

Prior to the enactment of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (“CPA”), the unilateral determination of price was governed by common law principles and it has been an established rule of South African law that “[t]here can be no valid contract of sale if the parties have agreed that the price is to be fixed in the future by one of them”. Firstly, the unilateral determination of price was considered as falling short of the requirement of certainty of price. This was due to a failure to distinguish between the unilateral determination of price and pure potestative conditions and was based on the views of the Roman-Dutch writers. Furthermore, unilateral price determinations were considered too vague to be enforceable.