Blake and Another v Cassim Another (255/07) [2008] ZASCA 67; [2008] 4 All SA 15 (SCA); 2008 (5) SA 393 (SCA) (29 May 2008)

Blake and Another v Cassim Another (255/07) [2008] ZASCA 67; [2008] 4 All SA 15 (SCA); 2008 (5) SA 393 (SCA) (29 May 2008)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the written agreement clearly stipulated the time for furnishing guarantees. Upon the purchaser's failure to provide the first guarantee within the twelve-month period, both guarantees became due. The seller was entitled to demand the guarantees and, upon the purchaser's failure to remedy the breach within the stipulated period, to cancel the agreement. The court rejected the argument that the seller was obliged to define the form of guarantee before making a demand, finding that the contract required only a guarantee acceptable to the seller's attorney, who must exercise honest judgment but is not required to specify the form in advance. The court...

Citation
[2008] ZASCA 67
Parties
Appellant: Michael Hugh Blake; Appellant: Odhin Investments CC; Respondent: Zaheer Cassim; Respondent: Theodor Wilhelm van den Heeven NNO
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 May 2008
Case Number
255/07
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld; respondents' claim dismissed.
Judges
Mpati, Cameron, Cloete, Ponnan, Leach
Legal Topics
Sale of Immovable Property, Contractual Interpretation, Guarantees in Property Sale, Cancellation of Contract, Specific Performance
Commercial and Corporate Land and Property Sale of Immovable Property Contractual Interpretation Guarantees in Property Sale Cancellation of Contract 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Hugh Blake

Appellant

Odhin Investments CC

Appellant

Zaheer Cassim

Respondent

Theodor Wilhelm van den Heeven NNO

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the purchaser breached the agreement by failing to furnish acceptable guarantees for payment of the balance of the purchase price.
  2. 2 Whether the seller validly and lawfully cancelled the agreement pursuant to the alleged breach.
  3. 3 Whether the seller was obliged to define the form of guarantee before making a demand for its furnishing.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the written agreement clearly stipulated the time for furnishing guarantees. Upon the purchaser's failure to provide the first guarantee within the twelve-month period, both guarantees became due. The seller was entitled to demand the guarantees and, upon the purchaser's failure to remedy the breach within the stipulated period, to cancel the agreement. The court rejected the argument that the seller was obliged to define the form of guarantee before making a demand, finding that the contract required only a guarantee acceptable to the seller's attorney, who must exercise honest judgment but is not required to specify the form in advance. The court...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; respondents' claim dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted with: (a) The plaintiffs' claim is dismissed with costs, excluding costs occasioned by the filing of the fourth and fifth sets of affidavits; (b) The costs occasioned by the filing of the additional affidavits are to be paid by the first defendant.