Izinkampani eziqashisayo zezimoto namaqhinga okumaketha akhohlisayo

Kusihloko somthetho wezokuvakasha waleli sonto, sihlola amacala ambalwa ezimoto eziqashwayo ahlanganisa imikhuba yokumaketha ekhohlisayo nengalungile abathengi okufanele bazi ngayo. Isinqumo sakamuva seNkantolo Yezikhalo Yesifunda ye-11 ku-Venerus v. Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC, No. 16-16993 (Januwari 25, 2018) singikhumbuza futhi, ngemva kweminyaka engu-40 yokubhala mayelana nomthetho wokuvakasha ukuthi okubi kakhulu, kude, abephula amalungelo abathengi embonini yezokuvakasha ezinye izinkampani zase-US eziqashisayo zezimoto.

Ecaleni lase-Venerus, elihilela isigaba sabathengi bomshwalense wezimoto eziqashisayo bakwamanye amazwe abathi, phakathi kokunye, ukwephulwa kwenkontileka kanye nokwephulwa kwe-Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Isifunda sesi-11 sahoxisa ukwenqaba kweNkantolo Yesifunda yesitifiketi sekilasi futhi yathi “Icala kuvela ku… Umkhuba webhizinisi we-Avis/Budget('s) wokuthengisa Umshwalense Wesikweletu Esingeziwe noma Umshwalense Wesikweletu Owengeziwe (SLI/ALI) kumakhasimende aqashisayo avela emazweni angaphandle kwe-United States. U-Heather Venerus uthi…ukuthi i-Avis/Ibhajethi yathembisa ukufakwa kwe-SLI/ALI njengenqubomgomo ehlinzekwe nge-Ace American Insurance Company (ACE) umshwalense ogunyazwe ukuhlinzeka ngale ndlela e-Florida. U-Venerus usola ukuthi naphezu kwesibopho senkontileka se-Avis/Isabelomali sokwenza kanjalo, akukho nqubomgomo ye-ACE nanoma yimuphi omunye umshwalense we-SLI/ALI owake wathengelwa, noma wanikezwa, abaqashi bamazwe angaphandle abathenga ukumbozwa ngokuzithandela. Esikhundleni salokho, i-Avis/Budget, okungeyona inkampani yomshwalense, kuhloswe ngayo ukuthi iqinisekisa abaqashi bangaphandle ngokwabo ngomshwalense wesikweletu senkontileka ebesingenayo inqubomgomo noma imigomo ebhaliwe. Njengoba ingenalo igunya lokusebenzisa umshwalense onjalo eFlorida, i-Avis/Budget kuthiwa ishiye abaqashi ngaphandle komshwalense osemthethweni ababethenjiswe wona nabawuthengile”. Ngaphezu kwalokho, iNkantolo yaphawula ukuthi “I-Avis/Isabelomali ayiphikisani nokuthi ayizange ithole izinqubomgomo zomshwalense we-SLA/ALI kwa-ACE”.

Ama-E-Tolls Angadalulwanga: Icala le-Mendez

E-Mendez v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., Civil Action No. 11-6537 (JLL) (DNJ Novemba 17, 2017), isenzo sekilasi egameni labathengi bezinsizakalo zezimoto eziqashiswayo izimoto zabo eziqashiswayo “zifakwe futhi zakhokhiswa ukusetshenziswa, isistimu ye-elekthronikhi ukukhokha ama-tolls okwaziwa nge-'e-Toll'”, Inkantolo yagunyaza isigaba ezweni lonke futhi yaphawula ukuthi “Ummangali ugomela ukuthi ngaphambi, ngesikhathi nangemva kokuqashwa kwakhe…akazange aziswe ukuthi imoto: 1) ifakwe i-e-Toll device; futhi 2) ngempela wabhaliswa kusengaphambili futhi wavulelwa i-e-Toll (futhi ngaphezu kwalokho) ukuthi akazange aziswe ukuthi (imoto yakhe eqashiswayo) ifakwe i-e-Toll device, ukuthi wayezobophezeleka ukukhokha ngaphezu kwe-toll yangempela. imali ebekiwe”. Ngesikhathi ummangali esohambweni lwaseFlorida, engazi, wakhokhiswa i-e-Toll yemoto yakhe u-$15.75 ehlanganisa i-toll engu-$.75 kanye “nemali yokunethezeka” engu-$15.00 “nakuba atshelwa…ngenkathi ebuyisela imoto ukuthi akabanga namacala engeziwe”. Bheka futhi: U-Olivas v. I-Hertz Corporation, Ikesi No. 17-cv-01083-BAS-NLS (SD Cal. Mashi 18, 2018)(amakhasimende aphonsa inselelo yezimali zokulawula ezikhokhiswayo mayelana nokusetshenziswa kwemigwaqo ekhokhelwayo; kuyasetshenziswa isigatshana somthetho sokunxeshezelwa) .

Ukuguqulwa Kwemali Okungafanele: Icala likaMargulis

Ecaleni lika-Margulis v. The Hertz Corporation, Civil Action No. 14-1209 (JMV) (DNJ February 28, 2017), isinyathelo sekilasi egameni lamakhasimende aqasha izimoto phesheya, Inkantolo ekuxazululeni ingxabano yokutholwa yaphawula ukuthi “Ummangali... iqale lesi senzo sesigaba sokukhokha…isola ukuthi u-Hertz wenza uhlelo olubanzi lokuguqula uhlobo lwemali, olubhalwe ukuthi 'i-dynamic currency conversion' (DCC) ukuze lukhwabanise amakhasimende ayo aqasha izimoto phesheya. Ummangali ugomela ukuthi u-Hertz ucaphuna izilinganiso zekhasimende zokuqashwa kwemoto ngaphandle kokufaka imali yokuguqula uhlobo lwemali, ukhokhisa inkokhelo ngokuqondile ekhadini lesikweletu lekhasimende abese eqamba amanga ngokuthi ikhasimende likhethe ukuguqulwa kohlobo lwemali ngokuqondile kanye nenkokhiso eyengeziwe elandelayo. Ummangali uthi ube yisisulu semikhuba ye-DCC ka-Hertz mayelana nokuqashiswa kwezimoto (e-United Kingdom nase-Italy) futhi usola ukwephulwa kwenkontileka, ukucebisa ngokungafanele, ukukhwabanisa kanye nokwephulwa kwe-New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

Izimali Zokundiza Ezivamile Ezingadalulwanga: Ikesi le-Schwartz

E-Schwartz v. Avis Rent A Car System, LLC, Civil Action Nos. 11-4052 (JLL), 12-7300 (JLL)(DNJ June 21, 2016) inikeze imvume yokugcina yesivumelwano sokukhokha esihlongozwayo [ukhetho lwemali noma i-10 iphesenti lesaphulelo ekuqashweni kwezimoto ezizayo] sesenzo sekilasi esiqinisekiswe ngaphambili [Schwartz v. Avis Rent A Car System, LLC, Civil Action No. 11-4052 (JLL)(DNJ Agasti 28, 2014)] egameni lekilasi le-Avis amakhasimende [izinsolo zokwephulwa kwenkontileka, ukwephulwa kwesivumelwano sokwethembeka nokusebenzelana kahle kanye nokwephulwa kwe-New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act] akhokhiswe inhlawulo engu-$0.75 ngokuzuza amamayela okundiza njalo neminye imiklomelo ngokubamba iqhaza kuHlelo Lozakwethu Lokuhamba lwe-Avis. Ekunikezeni isitifiketi sekilasi iNkantolo yaphawula ukuthi “Ummangali ugomela ngokuthi Abamangalelwa bahileleke ezinhlotsheni ezimbili ezihlukene zokuziphatha okungekho emthethweni: ukweqa ngamabomu kanye nemikhuba yezohwebo enganakile…(ngo) ngokushiya ngamabomu iqiniso lokuthi i-Avis ikhokhise u-$0.75 ngosuku ngokubamba iqhaza ohlelweni lwayo. 'ngakho kokubili ukwehluleka ukufaka [leli qiniso] endaweni lapho ummangali nabanye abaqashi abanengqondo bengalindela ukubabona futhi esikhundleni salokho (ngokwezinga lapho noma yikuphi ukudalulwa kwavezwa nhlobo) bafihla lawa maqiniso ezindaweni ezingacacile ngenhloso yokuthi Ummangali noma abanye abaqashi abanengqondo bayake babone,' Imikhuba yezentengiselwano engenanembeza okusolwa ukuthi...isekelwe kulokhu kweqiwa”.

Izimali Nezinkokhiso Ezingekho emthethweni: Arizona AG

E-State of Arizona v. Dennis N. Saban, Inombolo Yecala: CV2014-005556 (Arizona Super. February 14, 2018) J. Contes ukhiphe isinqumo esingu-$1.85 million ngemva kokuqulwa kwecala kwamasonto amahlanu kokuthola ukuthi i-Phoenix Car Rental kanye ne-Rent-A- ka-Saban Imoto yephule umthetho we-Arizona Consumer Fraud Act (ARS 44-1522 et seq) ngokubeka izinkokhiso nezinkokhiso ezingekho emthethweni kubathengi okungenani abangu-48,000 ukuze bafake “u-$3.00 we-PKG, u-$11.99 wesevisi nokuhlanza, u-$2.50 we-s/c”, inkokhiso eyisibopho, intela eyisibopho, abashayeli abangaphansi kweminyaka ethile, izinkokhiso zokukhokha ngokheshi noma amakhadi edebhithi, izinkokhiso zokuntuleka kobufakazi bomshwalense osebenzayo, izinkokhiso zabashayeli abengeziwe, izindleko zokuhamba ngaphandle kwezwe, izindleko zamalayisense okushayela omhlaba wonke, inkokhiso yangemva kwehora leshumi ukwehla. ivaliwe futhi ikhokhise i-shuttle, itekisi nezinye izindleko zokuhamba.

Kepha Akukona Konke

Eminyakeni engu-25 edlule noma ngaphezulu amakhasimende ezimoto eziqashisayo asole imikhuba yebhizinisi ekhohlisayo nengalungile eyenziwa izinkampani eziqashisa ngezimoto ukuthi ifake:

(1) izindleko ezeqile zokuyekwa komonakalo wokushayisana (CDW) [Weinberg v. The Hertz Corp., i-supra ($1,000 edonswa kumshwalense umthengi angase awukweqe ngokukhokha u-$6.00 ngosuku nge-CDW ekhishwe ngaphezu konyaka ibe ngu-$2,190 ngenani lika-$1,000 lokushayisana umshwalense womonakalo okusolwa ukuthi awunanembeza); Truta v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., 193 Cal. Uhlelo lokusebenza. 3d 802 (Cal. App. 1989)($6.00 ngosuku inkokhiso ye-CDW yokuthi njalo ngonyaka, amanani akhokhiswayo abe ngaphezu kwenani eliphindwe kabili “lomshwalense” onikeziwe futhi okusolwa ukuthi uphakeme ngokungafanele)] futhi yehluleka ukudalula ukuthi i-CDW ingahle iphinde umshwalense womqashisi [Super Glue Corp. v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., 132 AD 2d 604 (2d Dept. 1987)].

(2) ukushaja ngokweqile ekuhlinzekeni uphethiloli oshintshwayo ngemva kokubuyiselwa kwemoto eqashiwe [I-Roman v. Budget Rent-A-Car System, Inc., 2007 WL 604795 (DNJ 2007)($5.99 ilitha ngalinye); Oden v. Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc., 2008 WL 901325 (ED Tex. 2008)($4.95 ilitha ngalinye)].

(3) izinkokhiso ezeqile zomshwalense wengozi yomuntu siqu (PAI)[Weinberg v. The Hertz Corp., supra (izinsolo zokuthi inkokhiso yansuku zonke engu-$2.25 ye-PAI kusolwa ukuthi yayiyeqisa futhi ingenanembeza njengoba isilinganiso sosuku sasilingana nenani laminyaka yonke lama-$821.24)].

(4) izindleko ezeqile zokubuyiswa kwemoto sekwephuzile [Boyle v. U-Haul International, Inc., 2004 WL 2979755 (Pa. Com. Pl 2004)(“Kunephethini evamile kanye nomkhuba wokushaja imali eyengeziwe ' isikhathi sokuqasha' naphezu kokwehluleka ngokuphelele kwemibandela yenkontileka ukuchaza isikhathi sokuqasha, incazelo ecacile ekukhangiseni okubanzi kokuthi imoto ingaqashwa ngenani elimisiwe losuku lonke kanye nokwehluleka kwedokhumenti yenkontileka ukuthola noma yiliphi izinga 'lokusebenza. ' ngenxa yokwehluleka ukubuyisela okokusebenza ngesikhathi esimisiwe”)].

(5) izinkontileka zokunamathela [Votto v. American Car Rentals, Inc., 2003 WL 1477029 (Conn. Super. 2003)(inkampani eqashisa ngezimoto ayikwazi ukukhawulela ukuyekelela komonakalo wemoto ngesigatshana esisohlangothini oluhlehla lwenkontileka; 'Isivumelwano kuleli cala sithi isibonelo sakudala senkontileka yokunamathela ('ebandakanya[s] izinhlinzeko zenkontileka ezibhalwe futhi zabekwa iqembu elijabulela amandla okuxoxisana aphakeme akhawulela ngokungalindelekile futhi ngokuvamile ngokungafanele izibopho kanye nesibopho sezomthetho senhlangano ebhala inkontileka'”)].

(6) ukukhokhiswa kwezindleko ezingeziwe ezingafanele [Cotchett v. Avis-A-Car System, 56 FRD 549 (SDNY 1972)(abathengi baphonsela inselelo ukuba semthethweni kwenkokhiso yedola eyodwa ebekwe kuzo zonke izimoto eziqashiswayo ukumboza ukwephulwa kwemithetho yokupaka izinkampani eziqashisa ngezimoto eziqashiswayo ukuba necala ngaphansi komthetho wedolobha osanda kushaywa)].

(7) ukukhokhisa ngokweqile izindleko zokulungisa ngempela izimoto ezilimele [People v. Dollar Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc. 211 Cal. Uhlelo lokusebenza. 3d 119 (Cal. App. 1989)(umqashisi ukhokhise amanani okudayisa ngezindleko zewholesale yokulungisa izimoto ezilimele ngokusebenzisa ama-invoyisi angamanga)].

(8) ukuthengiswa ngokungemthetho komshwalense [People v. Dollar, supra (inkampani eqashisa ngezimoto enesibopho sokwenza ibhizinisi okungamanga nedukisayo; $100,000 inhlawulo yomphakathi ihlolwe); Truta, supra (CDW akuwona umshwalense)].

(9) izinhlinzeko ezingenanembeza nezinhlinzeko zokuqashisa [Hertz Corp. v. Dynatron, 427 A. 2d 872 (Conn. 1980).

(10) umshwana wokuzikhipha emthwalweni ongenanembeza wesikweletu sewaranti [Hertz v. Transportation Corp., 59 Misc. 2d 226 (NY Civ. 1969)].

(11) izindleko zokwehliswa zangaphandle kwezwe ezingadalulwanga [Garcia v. L&R Realty, Inc., 347 NJ Super. 481 (2002)(ikhasimende akudingekile ukuthi likhokhe imali engu-$600 ebekwe ngemva kokuba imoto eqashiwe ibuyiselwe endaweni engaphandle kwesifunda; izindleko zabameli nezindleko ziklonyelisiwe)].

(12) ukufakwa kwezintela zomgunyathi [Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Auto Europe, 2002 US Dist LEXIS 3319 (ND Ill. 2002)(amakhasimende asola ukuthi aphoqeleka ukuthi akhokhe 'intela yokuthengisa' yangaphandle noma 'intela eyengeziwe'…lapho ingekho intela enjalo eyayifuneka futhi ( inkampani eqashisa izimoto) igcinwe 'intela')].

(13) okungafakwanga kahle kwe-CDW [Danvers Motor Company, Inc. v. Looney, 78 Mass. App. Ct. 1123 (2011)(ukukhishwa akuphoqiwe)].

(14) ukwehluleka ukuveza izindleko ezingagwemeka [Schnall v. Hertz Corp., 78 Cal. Uhlelo lokusebenza. 4th 114 (Cal. App. 2000) (“Ukugunyazwa kwezindleko ezigwemekayo zezinsizakalo ozikhethela cishe akulingana nemvume yokudukisa amakhasimende mayelana nezindleko ezinjalo”)].

(15) ukwehluleka ukudalula ilayisensi nezindleko zesikhungo [Rosenberg v. Avis Rent A Car Systems, Inc., 2007 WL 2213642 (ED Pa. 2007) (amakhasimende asola ukuthi i-Avis 'ibandakanye iphethini kanye nomkhuba wokukhohlisa amakhasimende ngokukhokhisa $.54 ngosuku imali yelayisensi yemoto kanye nenkokhelo yenkokhelo yesikhungo sekhasimende engu-$3.95 ngosuku' ngaphandle kokudalula izinkokhiso”)].

(16) izinqubo zezimangalo ezingalungile [Ressler v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company. 2007 WL 2071655 WD Pa. 2007)(okusolwa ngokuphathwa ngendlela engafanele kwesimangalo ngaphansi kwenqubomgomo ye-PAI)].

I-Howire Ayishisi Kakhulu

Okusobala kweziningi zalezi zinqubo zebhizinisi okusolwa ukuthi ziyakhohlisa izimangalo zokuhlanekezela amaqiniso abalulekile. Isibonelo, ecaleni lango-2013, i-Shabar v. Hotwire, Inc. kanye ne-Expedia, Inc., 2013 WL 3877785 (ND Cal. 2013), ikhasimende lemoto eqashisayo lasola ukuthi “lasebenzise iwebhusayithi ye-Hotwire ukuqasha imoto endaweni eqashwayo. ejensi esikhumulweni sezindiza iBen Gurion eTel Aviv, Israel. UShabar usola ukuthi inkontileka yakhe neHotwere ibekwe phakathi kweminye imigomo, imali yokuqasha yansuku zonke ($14), isikhathi sokuqasha (izinsuku ezi-5), uhlu lwezintela ezilinganiselwe nezinkokhelo ($0) kanye nesamba senani eliphelele lohambo ($70), UShabar uthi ngesikhathi ethatha imoto, inkampani eqashisayo yamphoqa ukuthi akhokhe inani lentengo elilinganiselwa ku-$70.00 elalishiwo nguHotwire, kanye no-$60.00 owengeziwe womshwalense wesikweletu ovela eceleni kanye no-$20.82 wentela. Sekukonke uShabar uthi "ukhokhe u-$150.91, kuno-$70.00 olinganiselwa ngabakwaHotwire". Ekwenqabeni ukuchisha isikhalazo seShabar iNkantolo yanquma ukuthi 'i-Shabar igomela ngokwanele ukuthi isitatimende sika-Hotwire sokuqinisekisa esiphathelene nenani eliphelele elilinganisiwe singamanga noma sidukisa umuntu onengqondo. Okokuqala, lesi silinganiso sasingamanga ngoba iHotwire yeka ngamabomu izinkokhelo ezengeziwe ezibalulekile neziyisibopho ezitholakala kalula futhi eyayazi ukuthi uShabar kuzodingeka azikhokhe ukuze aqashe imoto. Okwesibili, intengo ecashunwe ezintela ezilinganiselwe nezinkokhelo ibingamanga ngoba i-Hotwire yazi ukuthi lezi zindleko ngeke zibe ngu-$0.00″.

Ubudlelwano Obupholile

Isibonelo esithakazelisayo sokubambisana okusolwayo phakathi kwabanye ohulumeni bezifundazwe kanye nemboni yezimoto eziqashisayo elimaza amakhasimende ezimoto eziqashisayo sibekwe obala ecaleni lase-California le-Shames v. Hertz Corporation, 2012 WL 5392159 (SD Cal. 2012) kanye nezifaniso zayo ze-Nevada. I-Sobel v. The Hertz Corporation, 291 FRD 525 (D. Nev. 2013) kanye no-Lee v. Enterprise Leasing Company, 2012 WL 3996848 (D. Nev. 2012).

Icala laseCalifornia

Njengoba kushiwo ku-Shames, i-supra “Ngo-2006, imboni yezimoto eziqashiswayo (i-RCD) yenza isiphakamiso sezinguquko emthethweni wase-California owashaywa kamuva… kuvunyelwe 'ukuqaqa' izinkokhelo ezikhokhiswa amakhasimende isikhangiso esihlanganisa amanani anjalo ngokwehlukana nenani eliyisisekelo lokuqasha. Ngokuphawulekayo, izinguquko ezamukelwayo zivumele izinkampani ukuthi 'zidlulisele okunye noma konke ukuhlola kumakhasimende'. Abamangali basola lokhu kwaholela ekukhokhisweni kwezimali ezimbili eziqondile kumakhasimende aqashisayo ezimoto zokungcebeleka...imali yokuhlola ezokuvakasha engu-2.5% yengezwa ezindlekweni zokuqashwa kwezimoto, okwasiza ukuxhasa iKhomishini. Abamangali basola ukuthi iKhomishini yabe isisebenzisana nama-RCD ekulungiseni amanani ezimoto eziqashisayo ngokudlulisela u-2.5% wemali yokuhlola ezokuvakasha kumakhasimende. Okwesibili, ama-RCD 'aqaqe' imali ekhona kakade yemvume yesikhumulo sezindiza ekhokhiswa amakhasimende ukuze akhokhele isikhumulo sezindiza ilungelo lokuqhuba ibhizinisi esakhiweni sesikhumulo sezindiza…9% yenani lokuqasha…abaqashi (basola ukuthi) bakhokhele inani eliphakeme kakhulu ukuqashwa kwemoto ezikhumulweni zezindiza zaseCalifornia kunokuba bebengayithola ngenye indlela”.

Amacala aseNevada

Ngenkathi isenzo sekilasi laseCalifornia Shames sixazululiwe isenzo sesigaba se-Nevada [Sobel v. Hertz Corporation, supra] esihilela ukudlula "imali yokutholwa kwemvume yesikhumulo sezindiza" saqulwa, phakathi kokunye, ukuthi lokhu kudlula kwephula umthetho kaNev. Rev. Izibalo. (NRS) Isigaba 482.31575 kanye Nomthetho Wemikhuba Yokuhweba Ekhohlisayo wase-Nevada (NDTPA) “Esino-$42…esigidini esisengcupheni’. Ekuqinisekiseni ikilasi nokuthola ukwephulwa komthetho iNkantolo yaphawula ukuthi “Imboni yezimoto eziqashisayo ngasekupheleni kweminyaka engamashumi ayisishiyagalombili yayihileleke empini enzima yamanani, impi lapho’ izinkampani [eziqashisa izimoto] bezilokhu zibangela ama-trap of more charges. abaqashi abangaqaphile futhi basebenzise imidiya ehlukahlukene yokukhangisa ukwenza lokho'”. INkantolo ihlinzekele umklomelo wokubuyiselwa komhlaba kanye nenzalo yokwahlulela kusengaphambili ngenani elisemthethweni.

Isiphetho  

Imboni yezimoto eziqashisayo yaseMelika inombono ongemuhle ngesibopho sayo kubathengi. Uma izinsiza zayo zingagwenywa noma zishintshwe, abathengi bayelulekwa kahle ukuthi benze kanjalo. Zama i-Uber noma i-Lyft ngokuzayo.

Umbhali, uThomas A. Dickerson, udlule emhlabeni ngoJulayi 26, 2018 eneminyaka engama-74. Ngomusa womndeni wakhe, eTurboNews uvunyelwe ukwaba izindatshana zakhe esinazo efayeleni asithumele lona ukuze sizolishicilela masonto onke ngokuzayo.

UMhlonishwa. UDickerson uthathe umhlalaphansi njenge-Associate Justice ye-Appellate Division, uMnyango Wesibili weNkantolo Ephakeme YaseNew York State futhi wabhala ngeTravel Law iminyaka engama-42 kubandakanya nezincwadi zakhe zomthetho ezivuselelwa minyaka yonke, iTravel Law, i-Law Journal Press (2018), Litigating International Torts in Izinkantolo zase-US, iThomson Reuters WestLaw (2018), Izenzo Zekilasi: Umthetho Wezizwe eziyi-50, i-Law Journal Press (2018), kanye nezindatshana zomthetho ezingaphezu kuka-500 eziningi zazo kuyatholakala lapha. Ngezindaba ezingeziwe zomthetho wezokuvakasha nentuthuko, ikakhulukazi emazweni angamalungu e-EU, Chofoza lapha.

Funda eziningi ze- Izindatshana zikaJustice Dickerson lapha.

Le ndatshana kungenzeka ingakhiqizwa kabusha ngaphandle kwemvume.