Broadway Sweet v Bon Bon Sweets CC and Another (2008/11025) [2014] ZAGPJHC 262 (15 July 2014)

Broadway Sweet v Bon Bon Sweets CC and Another (2008/11025) [2014] ZAGPJHC 262 (15 July 2014)

The court found that the defendants, through Gouws, made material misrepresentations regarding the condition and production capacity of the machinery sold to the plaintiff. These misrepresentations induced the plaintiff to enter into the contract. The evidence established that the machinery delivered was defective,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] ZAGPJHC 262
Parties
Plaintiff: Broadway Sweet; Defendant: Bon Bon Sweets CC; Defendant: Gouws Barend Johannes Christoffel
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 July 2014
Case Number
2008/11025
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim for refund of purchase price succeeds; defendants' counterclaim dismissed.
Judges
Tshabalala
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Purchase and Sale, Voetstoots Clause, Parole Evidence Rule, Restitution, Counterclaim
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Misrepresentation Purchase and Sale Voetstoots Clause Parole Evidence Rule Restitution Counterclaim

Source-derived case record

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Broadway Sweet

Plaintiff

Bon Bon Sweets CC

Defendant

Gouws Barend Johannes Christoffel

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants made material misrepresentations regarding the condition and capacity of the machinery sold to the plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to resile from the contract and claim restitution of the purchase price paid.
  3. 3 Whether the defendants are entitled to enforce the contract and claim the balance of the purchase price.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendants, through Gouws, made material misrepresentations regarding the condition and production capacity of the machinery sold to the plaintiff. These misrepresentations induced the plaintiff to enter into the contract. The evidence established that the machinery delivered was defective, incomplete, and not capable of optimal production as represented. The value of stock delivered was far less than invoiced. The court held that the parole evidence and voetstoots clauses did not preclude reliance on misrepresentation, as the contract was induced by such misrepresentation. The plaintiff was entitled to resile from the contract and claim restitution of the...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim for refund of purchase price succeeds; defendants' counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • The defendants jointly and severally are ordered to pay the plaintiff an amount of R972,975.41.
  • Payment is to be made against delivery of the goods, material, and machinery delivered to the plaintiff by the defendants.