Ferrari and Others v Gunner (1063/2013) [2015] ZASCA 5 (9 March 2015)

Ferrari and Others v Gunner (1063/2013) [2015] ZASCA 5 (9 March 2015)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the defences of undue influence and fraudulent misrepresentation were not established by the appellants. The evidence showed that D'Amico made it clear she was acting for Gunner, and the appellants, as experienced businesspeople, were not unduly influenced. The alleged misrepresentation regarding clause 3.7 was raised only as an afterthought and was not supported by the facts or correspondence. The court held that the agreements were valid and binding, and the High Court was correct to grant specific performance in motion proceedings, as there were no genuine disputes of fact requiring oral evidence. The breakdown of trust and alleged hardship did...

Citation
[2015] ZASCA 5
Parties
Appellant: Claudio Ferrari; Appellant: Sietse Remco Walma van der Molen; Appellant: Budget Sheetmetal (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Quintin Gordon Thomas Gunner
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 March 2015
Case Number
1063/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court, Gauteng Local Division, Johannesburg
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including those of two counsel.
Judges
Lewis, Cachalia, Majiedt, Pillay, Meyer
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Undue Influence, Contract Enforcement
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Specific Performance Fraudulent Misrepresentation Undue Influence Contract Enforcement

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

Parties

Claudio Ferrari

Appellant

Sietse Remco Walma van der Molen

Appellant

Budget Sheetmetal (Pty) Limited

Appellant

Quintin Gordon Thomas Gunner

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court, Gauteng Local Division, Johannesburg

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the agreements were vitiated by undue influence or fraudulent misrepresentation.
  2. 2 Whether the High Court was correct to grant specific performance in motion proceedings despite alleged disputes of fact.
  3. 3 Whether the order of specific performance was appropriate given the breakdown of trust between the parties.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the defences of undue influence and fraudulent misrepresentation were not established by the appellants. The evidence showed that D'Amico made it clear she was acting for Gunner, and the appellants, as experienced businesspeople, were not unduly influenced. The alleged misrepresentation regarding clause 3.7 was raised only as an afterthought and was not supported by the facts or correspondence. The court held that the agreements were valid and binding, and the High Court was correct to grant specific performance in motion proceedings, as there were no genuine disputes of fact requiring oral evidence. The breakdown of trust and alleged hardship did...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including those of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including those of two counsel.