Coetzee v Wilsenach Van Wyk Goosen & Bekker Inc (57161/11) [2013] ZAGPPHC 451 (4 December 2013)

Coetzee v Wilsenach Van Wyk Goosen & Bekker Inc (57161/11) [2013] ZAGPPHC 451 (4 December 2013)

The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant's representative, Mr. De Beer, did make representations to the plaintiff's husband regarding the safety of paying the deposit directly to the seller. The evidence established that the defendant breached its legal duty as conveyancers by failing to properly advise the plaintiff of the risks associated with such payment and by not investigating the financial position of the seller. The court accepted the plaintiff's version as more probable, supported by documentation and the conduct of the parties. Negligence was established, and the defendant was held liable in delict for the loss of the deposit and related costs.

Citation
[2013] ZAGPPHC 451
Parties
Plaintiff: Carol Coetzee; Defendant: Wilsenach Van Wyk Goosen & Bekker Inc
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 December 2013
Case Number
57161/11
Procedural Posture
Delictual Action / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff; defendant held liable in delict for negligent misrepresentation and breach of duty.
Judges
H J Fabricius
Legal Topics
Negligent Misrepresentation, Attorney Liability, Property Transfer, Deposit Payment, Unlawful Omission
Delict Land and Property Civil Procedure Negligent Misrepresentation Attorney Liability Property Transfer Deposit Payment Unlawful Omission

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

Parties

Carol Coetzee

Plaintiff

Wilsenach Van Wyk Goosen & Bekker Inc

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Delictual Action / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant, through its representative, made negligent misrepresentations to the plaintiff regarding the financial position of the seller and the safety of paying a deposit directly to the seller.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant breached its legal duty as conveyancers by failing to advise the plaintiff of the risks associated with paying a deposit prior to transfer.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant is liable in delict for the loss suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the deposit not being recovered.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant's representative, Mr. De Beer, did make representations to the plaintiff's husband regarding the safety of paying the deposit directly to the seller. The evidence established that the defendant breached its legal duty as conveyancers by failing to properly advise the plaintiff of the risks associated with such payment and by not investigating the financial position of the seller. The court accepted the plaintiff's version as more probable, supported by documentation and the conduct of the parties. Negligence was established, and the defendant was held liable in delict for the loss of the deposit and related costs.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff; defendant held liable in delict for negligent misrepresentation and breach of duty.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay R1 000 000 to the plaintiff.
  • Defendant to pay interest on R1 000 000 at 15.5% per annum from date of summons to date of payment.