Culverwell and Another v Brown (625/87) [1989] ZASCA 100; [1990] 1 All SA 253 (A) (7 September 1989)

Culverwell and Another v Brown (625/87) [1989] ZASCA 100; [1990] 1 All SA 253 (A) (7 September 1989)

The court held that, in cases where no time for performance is stipulated and the injured party elects to accept repudiation, damages should not be assessed at the date of repudiation but rather at the date of acceptance. The rationale is that a claim for damages does not arise until the repudiation is accepted, and it would be artificial to assess damages at a time when the contract is still alive and no claim has arisen. Where the property is resold without undue delay after acceptance, the difference between the contract price and the resale price is the proper measure of damages. The court found no undue delay in the respondent's acceptance or resale and confirmed that the respondent...

Citation
[1989] ZASCA 100
Parties
Appellant: Allan Culverwell; Appellant: Culverwell Knysna Properties (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Claudius Henry Brown
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 September 1989
Case Number
625/87
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Corbett, Hefer, Vivier, Eksteen, Nicholas
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Repudiation, Assessment of Damages, Sale of Land, Measure of Damages
Commercial and Corporate Land and Property Breach of Contract Repudiation Assessment of Damages Sale of Land Measure of Damages

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

Parties

Allan Culverwell

Appellant

Culverwell Knysna Properties (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Claudius Henry Brown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate date for assessing damages following repudiation of a contract of sale where no time for performance is stipulated.
  2. 2 Whether the damages should be calculated at the date of repudiation or at the date of acceptance of repudiation.
  3. 3 Whether the resale price of the property is the correct measure of damages in the absence of undue delay.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, in cases where no time for performance is stipulated and the injured party elects to accept repudiation, damages should not be assessed at the date of repudiation but rather at the date of acceptance. The rationale is that a claim for damages does not arise until the repudiation is accepted, and it would be artificial to assess damages at a time when the contract is still alive and no claim has arisen. Where the property is resold without undue delay after acceptance, the difference between the contract price and the resale price is the proper measure of damages. The court found no undue delay in the respondent's acceptance or resale and confirmed that the respondent...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.