Concor Holdings (Pty) Ltd t/a Concor Technicrete v Potgieter (219/03) [2004] ZASCA 59; [2004] 4 All SA 589 (SCA); 2004 (6) SA 491 (SCA) (28 May 2004)

Concor Holdings (Pty) Ltd t/a Concor Technicrete v Potgieter (219/03) [2004] ZASCA 59; [2004] 4 All SA 589 (SCA); 2004 (6) SA 491 (SCA) (28 May 2004)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant's conduct in delivering paving stones to the site for the respondent's building works, knowing their intended use and urgency, reasonably led the respondent to believe that the builder was entitled to transfer ownership. The appellant failed to guard against the foreseeable risk that the respondent would pay for the stones and believe he thereby acquired ownership. The test for estoppel by conduct is whether the representor should reasonably have expected the representee to be misled and whether the representee acted reasonably. The appellant's conduct satisfied these requirements, and the plea of estoppel succeeded. The appeal was...

Citation
[2004] ZASCA 59
Parties
Appellant: Concor Holdings (Pty) Ltd t/a Concor Technicrete; Respondent: Hermanus Phillipus Potgieter
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 May 2004
Case Number
219/03
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Pretoria High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Scott, Zulman, Farlam, Conradie, Cloete
Legal Topics
Estoppel by Conduct, Rei Vindicatio, Reservation of Ownership, Representation by Conduct
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Estoppel by Conduct Rei Vindicatio Reservation of Ownership Representation by Conduct

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Concor Holdings (Pty) Ltd t/a Concor Technicrete

Appellant

Hermanus Phillipus Potgieter

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Pretoria High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is estopped from vindicating paving stones of which it is the owner and which are in the respondent's possession.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant made a representation by conduct sufficient to found an estoppel against its rei vindicatio.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements for estoppel by conduct were satisfied in the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant's conduct in delivering paving stones to the site for the respondent's building works, knowing their intended use and urgency, reasonably led the respondent to believe that the builder was entitled to transfer ownership. The appellant failed to guard against the foreseeable risk that the respondent would pay for the stones and believe he thereby acquired ownership. The test for estoppel by conduct is whether the representor should reasonably have expected the representee to be misled and whether the representee acted reasonably. The appellant's conduct satisfied these requirements, and the plea of estoppel succeeded. The appeal was...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The appellant is ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.