Beijers v Harlequin Duck Properties 231 (Pty) Ltd t/a Office Space Online (1216/2017) [2019] ZASCA 89 (31 May 2019)

Beijers v Harlequin Duck Properties 231 (Pty) Ltd t/a Office Space Online (1216/2017) [2019] ZASCA 89 (31 May 2019)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the written contract between the parties was clear and unambiguous in its terms regarding commission entitlement. Clause 5.1 entitled the appellant to 50% commission for completed deals she effected, and the non-variation clause (clause 20) excluded any oral agreement or practice to the contrary unless reduced to writing and signed by both parties. The respondent's attempt to introduce evidence of an oral agreement or prevailing practice was inadmissible under the parol evidence rule and contradicted the express terms of the contract. The court found that both the appellant and Mr Bosman were involved in securing the transactions, and the appellant...

Citation
[2019] ZASCA 89
Parties
Appellant: Danielle Beijers; Respondent: Harlequin Duck Properties 231 (Pty) Ltd t/a Office Space Online
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 May 2019
Case Number
1216/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Full Bench of Gauteng Local Division, Johannesburg
Outcome
Appeal upheld; order of the high court set aside and substituted with dismissal of the appeal with costs.
Judges
Cachalia, Majiedt, Zondi, Mocumie, Gorven
Legal Topics
Contract Interpretation, Non Variation Clause, Commission Entitlement, Parol Evidence Rule
Commercial and Corporate Contract Interpretation Non Variation Clause Commission Entitlement Parol Evidence Rule

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Danielle Beijers

Appellant

Harlequin Duck Properties 231 (Pty) Ltd t/a Office Space Online

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Full Bench of Gauteng Local Division, Johannesburg

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the non-variation clause in the written contract precludes evidence of an alleged oral agreement regarding commission splitting.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was entitled to 50% commission as per the written contract or only 25% due to alleged oral agreement or prevailing practice.
  3. 3 Whether evidence of commission splitting practice or oral agreement is admissible to contradict the express terms of the contract.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the written contract between the parties was clear and unambiguous in its terms regarding commission entitlement. Clause 5.1 entitled the appellant to 50% commission for completed deals she effected, and the non-variation clause (clause 20) excluded any oral agreement or practice to the contrary unless reduced to writing and signed by both parties. The respondent's attempt to introduce evidence of an oral agreement or prevailing practice was inadmissible under the parol evidence rule and contradicted the express terms of the contract. The court found that both the appellant and Mr Bosman were involved in securing the transactions, and the appellant...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; order of the high court set aside and substituted with dismissal of the appeal with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The order of the high court is set aside and substituted with: 'The appeal is dismissed with costs.'