Edge Distributors CC v Minco Resources 202 (Pty) Ltd and Others (2010/12065) [2010] ZAGPJHC 116 (22 November 2010)

Edge Distributors CC v Minco Resources 202 (Pty) Ltd and Others (2010/12065) [2010] ZAGPJHC 116 (22 November 2010)

The court found that the commission-sharing arrangement between the applicant and third respondent was not governed by the non-variation clause in the Vizirama contract, as it was a separate agreement and not an annexure to the main contract. The oral variation of the commission-sharing arrangement was therefore...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] ZAGPJHC 116
Parties
Applicant: Edge Distributors CC; Respondent: Minco Resources 202 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Vizirama 148 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: JM Kruger T/A DTZ; Respondent: D. Gerber; Respondent: DC Butler
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 November 2010
Case Number
2010/12065
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where employed.
Judges
C G Lamont
Legal Topics
Commission Agreements, Oral Variation of Contract, Non Variation Clause, Contractual Dispute, Payment of Commission
Commercial and Corporate Commission Agreements Oral Variation of Contract Non Variation Clause Contractual Dispute Payment of Commission

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edge Distributors CC

Applicant

Minco Resources 202 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Vizirama 148 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

JM Kruger T/A DTZ

Respondent

D. Gerber

Respondent

DC Butler

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to commission under the Vizirama contract.
  2. 2 Whether the oral variation of the commission agreement is valid despite the non-variation clause.
  3. 3 Whether there is a material dispute of fact precluding relief by way of application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the commission-sharing arrangement between the applicant and third respondent was not governed by the non-variation clause in the Vizirama contract, as it was a separate agreement and not an annexure to the main contract. The oral variation of the commission-sharing arrangement was therefore effective. The evidence, including subsequent contracts and correspondence, supported the respondents' version that the applicant was only entitled to commission from the Nuco contract and not from the Vizirama contract. The court further held that there was a material dispute of fact regarding the terms of the oral variation, which was well-known to the applicant prior to...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where employed.

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs including the costs of two counsel where they were employed.