The use of auxiliary verbs used in the Act, of the application of a legislative drafting convention relating to definitions (i.e. words used in a definition are not to be repeated in the provision itself), and the use of section headings in the Consumer Protection Act, 2008 were analysed. Because the words “shall” and “shall not” are not used in the Act, the use of the words “must” and “must not” instead of “shall” and “shall not” is not in accordance with legislative drafting conventions. The same applies to the use of “must” instead of “may not”. The words “has a right” to create a right are preferred to “entitled to”. The phrase “no obligation to” is used instead of “not required to” to negate a duty. The words “required to” (instead of “must”) are used to create a mere condition precedent. In many instances the convention relating to definitions is not followed, resulting in repetition of words in provisions. The section headings used partially follow the conventions.