Bosman N.O. and Another v Mortimer Toyota (Pty) Ltd (A166/2015) [2016] ZAFSHC 85 (9 June 2016)

Bosman N.O. and Another v Mortimer Toyota (Pty) Ltd (A166/2015) [2016] ZAFSHC 85 (9 June 2016)

The court found that the transaction in question was a private deal facilitated by Mr Wium, the branch manager, outside the official business and internal regulations of Mortimer Toyota. There was no representation by the defendant itself that Mr Wium was authorised to conclude such agreements. The evidence showed that the transaction did not go through the defendant's books, and the commission was to be paid directly to the salesman, not the company. The plaintiff, being an attorney and experienced businessman, either knew or ought to have known that he was not dealing with the defendant but with Mr Wium personally. The requirements for ostensible authority and estoppel were not met, as...

Citation
[2016] ZAFSHC 85
Parties
Appellant: Leon Bosman N.O.; Appellant: Izak Daniel Bosman N.O.; Respondent: Mortimer Toyota (Pty) Ltd
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 June 2016
Case Number
A166/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Full Bench Appeal After Leave to Appeal Granted
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Lekale, Motimele, Zietsman
Legal Topics
Ostensible Authority, Estoppel, Agency Law, Private Sale of Goods
Commercial and Corporate Ostensible Authority Estoppel Agency Law Private Sale of Goods

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

Parties

Leon Bosman N.O.

Appellant

Izak Daniel Bosman N.O.

Appellant

Mortimer Toyota (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Full Bench Appeal After Leave to Appeal Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the branch manager, Mr Wium, had ostensible authority to bind the defendant in an oral agreement with the plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant is estopped from denying Mr Wium's authority to conclude the contract.
  3. 3 Whether the transaction was a private deal outside the defendant's business and internal regulations.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the transaction in question was a private deal facilitated by Mr Wium, the branch manager, outside the official business and internal regulations of Mortimer Toyota. There was no representation by the defendant itself that Mr Wium was authorised to conclude such agreements. The evidence showed that the transaction did not go through the defendant's books, and the commission was to be paid directly to the salesman, not the company. The plaintiff, being an attorney and experienced businessman, either knew or ought to have known that he was not dealing with the defendant but with Mr Wium personally. The requirements for ostensible authority and estoppel were not met, as...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.