Bob's Shoe Centre v Heneways Freight Services Proprietary Ltd. (752/92) [1994] ZASCA 158; 1995 (2) SA 421 (AD); [1995] 1 All SA 693 (A) (18 November 1994)

Bob's Shoe Centre v Heneways Freight Services Proprietary Ltd. (752/92) [1994] ZASCA 158; 1995 (2) SA 421 (AD); [1995] 1 All SA 693 (A) (18 November 1994)

The court held that the contract between the parties was divisible, as the various operations—forwarding, degrouping, customs clearance, and transportation—were distinct and could be allocated corresponding payments. The obligation to transport the goods from the airport to the appellant's premises was subsidiary and severable from the main purpose of the contract. The theft of the goods constituted supervening impossibility of performance, which was not self-created or due to any fault of the respondent. The respondent was discharged from further performance, and the appellant's obligation to pay was extinguished only in respect of the undelivered portion. The respondent was entitled to...

Citation
[1994] ZASCA 158
Parties
Appellant: Bob's Shoe Centre; Respondent: Heneways Freight Services Proprietary Ltd.
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 November 1994
Case Number
752/92
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Witwatersrand Local Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Botha, Hefer, F H Grosskopf, Van den Heever, Harms
Legal Topics
Contract Divisibility, Supervening Impossibility, Exceptio Non Adimpleti Contractus, Risk of Loss, Mandatum and Bailment
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Contract Divisibility Supervening Impossibility Exceptio Non Adimpleti Contractus Risk of Loss Mandatum and Bailment

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bob's Shoe Centre

Appellant

Heneways Freight Services Proprietary Ltd.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Witwatersrand Local Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contract between the parties was divisible or indivisible for purposes of payment following supervening impossibility of performance.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent bore the risk of loss due to theft under the contract.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's partial performance entitled it to pro rata payment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the contract between the parties was divisible, as the various operations—forwarding, degrouping, customs clearance, and transportation—were distinct and could be allocated corresponding payments. The obligation to transport the goods from the airport to the appellant's premises was subsidiary and severable from the main purpose of the contract. The theft of the goods constituted supervening impossibility of performance, which was not self-created or due to any fault of the respondent. The respondent was discharged from further performance, and the appellant's obligation to pay was extinguished only in respect of the undelivered portion. The respondent was entitled to...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.