Bridgestone SA (Pty) Ltd v SA Truck Bodies (Pty) Ltd (A842/2008) [2011] ZAFSHC 170 (3 November 2011)

Bridgestone SA (Pty) Ltd v SA Truck Bodies (Pty) Ltd (A842/2008) [2011] ZAFSHC 170 (3 November 2011)

The court found that the arrangement regarding the R70.00 per tyre was not a suspensive condition but rather a fee for services rendered, and that the so-called condition was in fact a resolutive condition dependent on the defendant's discretion. Since the defendant was not obliged to accept any proposal from Maxiprest, and Maxiprest never rendered services to the defendant, the status quo continued and the defendant was entitled to the rebate. The court held that the defendant was not required to plead the existence or fulfilment of a resolutive condition, and that the plaintiff's technical argument was opportunistic. The application for leave to appeal was refused as there were no...

Citation
[2011] ZAFSHC 170
Parties
Applicant: Bridgestone SA (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: SA Truck Bodies (Pty) Ltd
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 November 2011
Case Number
A842/2008
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Trial Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.
Judges
A.F. Jordaan
Legal Topics
Oral Agreement, Conditional Obligation, Counterclaim, Leave to Appeal
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Oral Agreement Conditional Obligation Counterclaim Leave to Appeal

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

Parties

Bridgestone SA (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

SA Truck Bodies (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the agreement to pay R70.00 per tyre was conditional or unconditional.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant was required to plead and prove fulfilment of a suspensive or resolutive condition.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court erred in finding the defendant entitled to the R70.00 per tyre rebate.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the arrangement regarding the R70.00 per tyre was not a suspensive condition but rather a fee for services rendered, and that the so-called condition was in fact a resolutive condition dependent on the defendant's discretion. Since the defendant was not obliged to accept any proposal from Maxiprest, and Maxiprest never rendered services to the defendant, the status quo continued and the defendant was entitled to the rebate. The court held that the defendant was not required to plead the existence or fulfilment of a resolutive condition, and that the plaintiff's technical argument was opportunistic. The application for leave to appeal was refused as there were no...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is refused.
  • The plaintiff is ordered to pay the costs of the application.