Cooper v Clark (2015/31475) [2016] ZAGPJHC 79 (29 April 2016)

Cooper v Clark (2015/31475) [2016] ZAGPJHC 79 (29 April 2016)

The court found that the respondent's amendments to the applicant's written offer, particularly the insertion to clause 14, materially altered the intended contractual terms. These changes amounted to a counter-offer, which was not accepted by the applicant. As a result, no binding contract of sale came into existence between the parties. The applicant was therefore entitled to the refund of the remaining deposit paid, as the respondent had no contractual right to retain the amount in the absence of a valid agreement.

Citation
[2016] ZAGPJHC 79
Parties
Applicant: Dhanmathie Cooper; Respondent: Paula Clark
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 April 2016
Case Number
2015/31475
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application granted in favour of the applicant. Judgment against the respondent for payment of the claimed amount.
Judges
L Adams
Legal Topics
Contract Formation, Counter Offer, Material Alteration, Refund of Deposit
Land and Property Civil Procedure Contract Formation Counter Offer Material Alteration Refund of Deposit

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

Parties

Dhanmathie Cooper

Applicant

Paula Clark

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a valid and enforceable contract of sale was concluded between the parties.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's amendments to the offer constituted a counter-offer, thereby preventing the formation of a binding agreement.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to a refund of the deposit paid in terms of the purported agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's amendments to the applicant's written offer, particularly the insertion to clause 14, materially altered the intended contractual terms. These changes amounted to a counter-offer, which was not accepted by the applicant. As a result, no binding contract of sale came into existence between the parties. The applicant was therefore entitled to the refund of the remaining deposit paid, as the respondent had no contractual right to retain the amount in the absence of a valid agreement.

Court Disposition

Application granted in favour of the applicant. Judgment against the respondent for payment of the claimed amount.

Orders

  • The respondent shall pay to the applicant the amount of R330,000.00.
  • The respondent shall pay to the applicant the interest on R330,000.00 accrued by virtue of its investment in an interest bearing trust account pending resolution of the dispute.