Deloitte Haskins & Sells Consultants (Pty) Ltd. v Bowthorpe Hellerman Deutsch (Pty) Ltd. (303/1989) [1990] ZASCA 136; 1991 (1) SA 525 (AD); [1991] 1 All SA 400 (A) (16 November 1990)

Deloitte Haskins & Sells Consultants (Pty) Ltd. v Bowthorpe Hellerman Deutsch (Pty) Ltd. (303/1989) [1990] ZASCA 136; 1991 (1) SA 525 (AD); [1991] 1 All SA 400 (A) (16 November 1990)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that clause 15 of the agreement between the parties created a contractual remedy distinct from the common law claim for complementary damages. Under clause 15, the respondent could only claim the actual costs incurred in employing a third party to complete the computer system, and not damages generally available under the common law. The debt under clause 15 did not become due upon the breach of contract on 30 June 1981, but only when the respondent actually engaged a third party and incurred costs. Therefore, prescription could not begin to run until those conditions were met. The respondent's claim was not prescribed, as the cause of action only accrued...

Citation
[1990] ZASCA 136
Parties
Appellant: Deloitte Haskins & Sells Consultants (Proprietary) Limited; Respondent: Bowthorpe Hellerman Deutsch (Proprietary) Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 November 1990
Case Number
303/1989
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Full Bench of Transvaal Provincial Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Van Heerden, Milne, Kumleben, F H Grosskopf, Nicholas
Legal Topics
Prescription, Breach of Contract, Locatio Conductio Operis, Contractual Remedies
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Prescription Breach of Contract Locatio Conductio Operis Contractual Remedies

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

Parties

Deloitte Haskins & Sells Consultants (Proprietary) Limited

Appellant

Bowthorpe Hellerman Deutsch (Proprietary) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Full Bench of Transvaal Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's claim for costs of employing a third party to complete a computer system was prescribed under the Prescription Act.
  2. 2 Whether clause 15 of the agreement provided a remedy distinct from the common law claim for complementary damages.
  3. 3 When did the debt under clause 15 become due for the purposes of prescription?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that clause 15 of the agreement between the parties created a contractual remedy distinct from the common law claim for complementary damages. Under clause 15, the respondent could only claim the actual costs incurred in employing a third party to complete the computer system, and not damages generally available under the common law. The debt under clause 15 did not become due upon the breach of contract on 30 June 1981, but only when the respondent actually engaged a third party and incurred costs. Therefore, prescription could not begin to run until those conditions were met. The respondent's claim was not prescribed, as the cause of action only accrued...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.