Christo Strydom Nutrition v University of the Free State (A169/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 482 (12 December 2023)

Christo Strydom Nutrition v University of the Free State (A169/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 482 (12 December 2023)

The court held that the trial court erred in upholding the exception against the plea of rectification, as the exception did not address that defence and the excipient is confined to the stated grounds. Regarding the tacit term, the court found that the existence of 'entire agreement' and 'non-variation' clauses does not preclude the pleading of a tacit term, provided it does not contradict the express terms. The pleaded tacit term—that the plaintiff's laboratory be duly accredited and registered to perform the tests—was not inconsistent with the written agreement and was necessary for business efficacy. The plea was neither vague nor embarrassing and contained sufficient averments to...

Citation
[2023] ZAFSHC 482
Parties
Appellant: Christo Strydom Nutrition; Respondent: University of the Free State
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 December 2023
Case Number
A169/2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Upholding of Exception to Plea
Outcome
Appeal upheld. Exception dismissed with costs.
Judges
Van Zyl, Naidoo, Chesiwe
Legal Topics
Exception Procedure, Contract Rectification, Tacit Terms, Entire Agreement Clause, Non Variation Clause
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Exception Procedure Contract Rectification Tacit Terms Entire Agreement Clause Non Variation Clause

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christo Strydom Nutrition

Appellant

University of the Free State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Upholding of Exception to Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court a quo erred in upholding the exception against the defendant's plea of rectification.
  2. 2 Whether the plea of a tacit term regarding laboratory accreditation is excipiable as vague, embarrassing, or lacking necessary averments.
  3. 3 Whether the 'entire agreement' and 'non-variation' clauses preclude the pleading of a tacit term.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the trial court erred in upholding the exception against the plea of rectification, as the exception did not address that defence and the excipient is confined to the stated grounds. Regarding the tacit term, the court found that the existence of 'entire agreement' and 'non-variation' clauses does not preclude the pleading of a tacit term, provided it does not contradict the express terms. The pleaded tacit term—that the plaintiff's laboratory be duly accredited and registered to perform the tests—was not inconsistent with the written agreement and was necessary for business efficacy. The plea was neither vague nor embarrassing and contained sufficient averments to...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. Exception dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld, with costs.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted with: 'The exception is dismissed, with costs.'