Administrator of Natal v Edouard (5/89) [1990] ZASCA 60; 1990 (3) SA 581 (AD); [1990] 2 All SA 374 (A) (30 May 1990)

Administrator of Natal v Edouard (5/89) [1990] ZASCA 60; 1990 (3) SA 581 (AD); [1990] 2 All SA 374 (A) (30 May 1990)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent's claim for child-raising expenses was well-founded in law, as the damages flowed directly and naturally from the breach of contract and were contemplated by the parties. Public policy does not preclude recovery of such damages, as the obligation to support the child remains with the parents, and the award merely enables them to fulfil that obligation. The court rejected the argument that intangible benefits of parenthood should be set off against patrimonial loss, finding no basis for such an approach in South African law. Regarding the cross-appeal for pain and suffering, the court held that South African law does not permit recovery...

Citation
[1990] ZASCA 60
Parties
Appellant: Administrator of Natal; Respondent: Mervyn Gregory Edouard
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 May 1990
Case Number
5/89
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Durban and Coast Local Division
Outcome
Both the appeal and the cross-appeal are dismissed with costs.
Judges
Joubert, Van Heerden, Milne, Nicholas, Goldstone
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Damages for Unplanned Birth, Public Policy in Contract, Pain and Suffering, Patrimonial Loss
Civil Procedure Delict Breach of Contract Damages for Unplanned Birth Public Policy in Contract Pain and Suffering Patrimonial Loss

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 4 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Administrator of Natal

Appellant

Mervyn Gregory Edouard

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Durban and Coast Local Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether damages for the cost of maintaining and supporting a child born as a result of breach of contract are recoverable.
  2. 2 Whether non-patrimonial damages for discomfort, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities of life arising from breach of contract are recoverable.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent's claim for child-raising expenses was well-founded in law, as the damages flowed directly and naturally from the breach of contract and were contemplated by the parties. Public policy does not preclude recovery of such damages, as the obligation to support the child remains with the parents, and the award merely enables them to fulfil that obligation. The court rejected the argument that intangible benefits of parenthood should be set off against patrimonial loss, finding no basis for such an approach in South African law. Regarding the cross-appeal for pain and suffering, the court held that South African law does not permit recovery...

Court Disposition

Both the appeal and the cross-appeal are dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • The cross-appeal is dismissed with costs.