Baker v Probert (228/1983) [1985] ZASCA 22; [1985] 2 All SA 263 (A) (7 May 1985)

Baker v Probert (228/1983) [1985] ZASCA 22; [1985] 2 All SA 263 (A) (7 May 1985)

The court held that York Estate was the agent of the defendant for the purpose of receiving payment of the purchase price. The contract expressly stipulated that payment was to be made to York Estate, and this operated as a discharge of the plaintiff's obligation to the defendant. The mechanism requiring York Estate to hold the funds in trust until delivery of the share certificates did not alter the agency relationship. Upon cancellation of the contract due to the defendant's breach, the plaintiff was entitled to restitution from the defendant, irrespective of York Estate's insolvency. The defendant's liability was not affected by any implied agreement between the plaintiff and York...

Citation
[1985] ZASCA 22
Parties
Appellant: Albert Blackmore Baker; Respondent: Hilda May Probert
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 May 1985
Case Number
228/1983
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of Durban and Coast Local Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Corbett, Kotzé, Viljoen, Hoexter, Botha
Legal Topics
Agency in Contract, Restitution After Cancellation, Stakeholder Vs Agent, Specific Performance
Commercial and Corporate Agency in Contract Restitution After Cancellation Stakeholder Vs Agent Specific Performance

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Albert Blackmore Baker

Appellant

Hilda May Probert

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of Durban and Coast Local Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was York Estate the agent of the defendant for receiving payment of the purchase price from the plaintiff?
  2. 2 Is the defendant liable to repay the purchase price to the plaintiff upon cancellation of the contract due to his breach?
  3. 3 Does the insolvency of York Estate affect the plaintiff's right to restitution from the defendant?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that York Estate was the agent of the defendant for the purpose of receiving payment of the purchase price. The contract expressly stipulated that payment was to be made to York Estate, and this operated as a discharge of the plaintiff's obligation to the defendant. The mechanism requiring York Estate to hold the funds in trust until delivery of the share certificates did not alter the agency relationship. Upon cancellation of the contract due to the defendant's breach, the plaintiff was entitled to restitution from the defendant, irrespective of York Estate's insolvency. The defendant's liability was not affected by any implied agreement between the plaintiff and York...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The appellant is ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.