Eileen Louvert Real Estate (Pty) Ltd. v AFC Property Development Co (Pty) Ltd. (462/1987) [1989] ZASCA 22; [1989] 2 All SA 290 (A) (23 March 1989)

Eileen Louvert Real Estate (Pty) Ltd. v AFC Property Development Co (Pty) Ltd. (462/1987) [1989] ZASCA 22; [1989] 2 All SA 290 (A) (23 March 1989)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the written agreement between the parties conferred a sole and exclusive mandate to the appellant to sell the properties, and provided that commission would be payable even if the respondent sold the properties itself or through another agent during the mandate period. The mandate was not granted for a specific period, and the agreement did not entitle the respondent to terminate it summarily. In accordance with the general rule applicable to agreements of unspecified duration, the respondent could only terminate the agreement on reasonable notice. The respondent neither pleaded nor proved that reasonable notice was given, and the evidence did not...

Citation
[1989] ZASCA 22
Parties
Appellant: Eileen Louvert Real Estate (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: A F C Property Development Co (Pty) Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 March 1989
Case Number
462/1987
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Witwatersrand Local Division
Outcome
Appeal upheld; order of the court a quo set aside and replaced.
Judges
Van Heerden, Grosskopf, Nicholas
Legal Topics
Estate Agency Mandate, Sole Agency, Commission Entitlement, Contract Termination, Reasonable Notice
Commercial and Corporate Land and Property Estate Agency Mandate Sole Agency Commission Entitlement Contract Termination Reasonable Notice

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eileen Louvert Real Estate (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

A F C Property Development Co (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Witwatersrand Local Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent validly terminated the sole mandate granted to the appellant estate agent before selling the property.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant is entitled to commission on the sale of the remainder of the properties despite not introducing the purchaser.
  3. 3 Whether reasonable notice was required to terminate the agreement conferring the sole mandate.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the written agreement between the parties conferred a sole and exclusive mandate to the appellant to sell the properties, and provided that commission would be payable even if the respondent sold the properties itself or through another agent during the mandate period. The mandate was not granted for a specific period, and the agreement did not entitle the respondent to terminate it summarily. In accordance with the general rule applicable to agreements of unspecified duration, the respondent could only terminate the agreement on reasonable notice. The respondent neither pleaded nor proved that reasonable notice was given, and the evidence did not...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; order of the court a quo set aside and replaced.

Orders

  • The defendant is ordered to pay to the plaintiff the sum of R64 750-00, interest on that sum at the rate of 11% per annum, and costs of suit.