Barnard v Swart B.K. (336/92) [1993] ZASCA 189 (30 November 1993)

Barnard v Swart B.K. (336/92) [1993] ZASCA 189 (30 November 1993)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent had proved on a balance of probabilities that the appellant contracted in his personal capacity and was liable for payment for the electrical work and materials supplied. The court found the appellant's version inherently improbable, particularly his insistence on a builder's discount and the manner in which payments were made. The appellant's conduct, including the issuance of cheques from his own business and his failure to clearly communicate any agency relationship, supported the respondent's case. The court rejected the appellant's reliance on industry practice and found that the burden of proof was correctly applied. The appeal...

Citation
[1993] ZASCA 189
Parties
Appellant: Johannes Barnard; Respondent: W F Swart B.K.
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 November 1993
Case Number
336/92
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Kumleben, Howie, Van Coller
Legal Topics
Agency, Burden of Proof, Contractual Liability, Subcontracting Practices
Commercial and Corporate Agency Burden of Proof Contractual Liability Subcontracting Practices

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

Parties

Johannes Barnard

Appellant

W F Swart B.K.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant contracted in his personal capacity or as agent for a third party.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant is personally liable to the respondent for payment for electrical work and materials supplied.
  3. 3 Which party bore the burden of proof regarding the nature of the contractual relationship.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent had proved on a balance of probabilities that the appellant contracted in his personal capacity and was liable for payment for the electrical work and materials supplied. The court found the appellant's version inherently improbable, particularly his insistence on a builder's discount and the manner in which payments were made. The appellant's conduct, including the issuance of cheques from his own business and his failure to clearly communicate any agency relationship, supported the respondent's case. The court rejected the appellant's reliance on industry practice and found that the burden of proof was correctly applied. The appeal...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.