Delfs v Kuehne & Nagel (PROP) Ltd. (159/89) [1989] ZASCA 160 (28 November 1989)

Delfs v Kuehne & Nagel (PROP) Ltd. (159/89) [1989] ZASCA 160 (28 November 1989)

The court held that the tacit term pleaded by the appellant, which would have made the respondent responsible for ensuring compliance with all conditions of the Letter of Credit regardless of circumstances, could not be implied. Such a term would effectively make the respondent a guarantor, which was neither necessary for business efficacy nor reflective of the parties' common intention. The evidence showed that the failure to comply with the Letter of Credit was due to the appellant's inability to supply the correct number of animals, not any breach by the respondent. Even if the tacit term were accepted with the respondent's proposed proviso, the facts established that the respondent...

Citation
[1989] ZASCA 160
Parties
Appellant: Wolfgang Karl Rudolf Delfs; Respondent: Kuehne & Nagel (PROP) Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 November 1989
Case Number
159/89
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Full Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Botha, Vivier, Kumleben, Eksteen, F H Grosskopf
Legal Topics
Implied Terms in Contract, Tacit Terms, Letter of Credit, Damages for Breach, Business Efficacy Test
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Implied Terms in Contract Tacit Terms Letter of Credit Damages for Breach Business Efficacy Test

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

Parties

Wolfgang Karl Rudolf Delfs

Appellant

Kuehne & Nagel (PROP) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Full Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a tacit term existed in the agreement obliging the plaintiff to ensure compliance with all requirements of the Letter of Credit.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff breached any such tacit term.
  3. 3 Whether any breach by the plaintiff caused the defendant's alleged damages.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the tacit term pleaded by the appellant, which would have made the respondent responsible for ensuring compliance with all conditions of the Letter of Credit regardless of circumstances, could not be implied. Such a term would effectively make the respondent a guarantor, which was neither necessary for business efficacy nor reflective of the parties' common intention. The evidence showed that the failure to comply with the Letter of Credit was due to the appellant's inability to supply the correct number of animals, not any breach by the respondent. Even if the tacit term were accepted with the respondent's proposed proviso, the facts established that the respondent...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.