Absolute View (Pty) Ltd v Caterpillar Financial Services SA (Pty) Ltd (14425 / 2021) [2021] ZAGPJHC 592 (28 October 2021)

Absolute View (Pty) Ltd v Caterpillar Financial Services SA (Pty) Ltd (14425 / 2021) [2021] ZAGPJHC 592 (28 October 2021)

The court found that the termination clause in the contract was not contrary to public policy on its face, as it represented a standard commercial arrangement freely entered into by the parties. The applicant failed to provide any factual basis to demonstrate that the exercise of the termination right was unreasonable, oppressive, or unconstitutional. Regarding the self-help clauses, the court held that although such terms may be illegal, there was no evidence that the respondent had ever attempted self-help, rendering the issue moot. The application was dismissed due to the absence of facts warranting judicial intervention.

Citation
[2021] ZAGPJHC 592
Parties
Applicant: Absolute View (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Caterpillar Financial Services SA (Pty) Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 October 2021
Case Number
14425 / 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
S D J Wilson
Legal Topics
Contract Termination, Public Policy, Lex Commissoria, Self Help Clauses
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Contract Termination Public Policy Lex Commissoria Self Help Clauses

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Absolute View (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Caterpillar Financial Services SA (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contract's termination clause, invoked upon the death of the guarantor, is contrary to constitutionally informed public policy.
  2. 2 Whether contractual terms authorising self-help are enforceable or should be set aside.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the termination clause in the contract was not contrary to public policy on its face, as it represented a standard commercial arrangement freely entered into by the parties. The applicant failed to provide any factual basis to demonstrate that the exercise of the termination right was unreasonable, oppressive, or unconstitutional. Regarding the self-help clauses, the court held that although such terms may be illegal, there was no evidence that the respondent had ever attempted self-help, rendering the issue moot. The application was dismissed due to the absence of facts warranting judicial intervention.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.