Firs Investment Ltd v Levy Bros Estates (Pty) Ltd (257/82) [1984] ZASCA 20; [1984] 2 All SA 211 (A) ; 1984 (2) SA 881 (A) (22 March 1984)

Firs Investment Ltd v Levy Bros Estates (Pty) Ltd (257/82) [1984] ZASCA 20; [1984] 2 All SA 211 (A) ; 1984 (2) SA 881 (A) (22 March 1984)

The court held that the mandate granted to the respondent was both exclusive and irrevocable for the specified period, conferring upon the respondent the sole authority to effect the sale of the property on the appellant's behalf. The appellant's premature revocation of the mandate constituted a breach of contract, as it deprived the respondent of the opportunity to earn commission from a sale that, on the probabilities, would have been completed with the Fund, which was ready, willing, and able to purchase on the stipulated terms. The respondent was therefore entitled to claim damages equivalent to the commission it would have earned. The authorities relied upon by the appellant were...

Citation
[1984] ZASCA 20
Parties
Appellant: The Firs Investment Ltd; Respondent: Levy Bros Estates (Pty) Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 March 1984
Case Number
257/82
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Rabie, Kotzé, Joubert, Trengove, Smuts
Legal Topics
Estate Agency Mandate, Breach of Contract, Commission Entitlement, Authority to Sell, Repudiation
Commercial and Corporate Land and Property Estate Agency Mandate Breach of Contract Commission Entitlement Authority to Sell Repudiation

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

Parties

The Firs Investment Ltd

Appellant

Levy Bros Estates (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's premature revocation of the respondent's sole irrevocable mandate to sell the property constituted a breach of contract.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent is entitled to damages in lieu of commission as a result of the breach.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent established on a balance of probabilities that a sale would have been completed but for the revocation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the mandate granted to the respondent was both exclusive and irrevocable for the specified period, conferring upon the respondent the sole authority to effect the sale of the property on the appellant's behalf. The appellant's premature revocation of the mandate constituted a breach of contract, as it deprived the respondent of the opportunity to earn commission from a sale that, on the probabilities, would have been completed with the Fund, which was ready, willing, and able to purchase on the stipulated terms. The respondent was therefore entitled to claim damages equivalent to the commission it would have earned. The authorities relied upon by the appellant were...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The appellant is ordered to pay the respondent's costs, including the costs consequent upon the employment of two counsel.