Fivaz v ABSA Bank Bpk. (77/97) [1999] ZASCA 81 (10 November 1999)
- Citation
- [1999] ZASCA 81
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Supreme Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Van Heerden, Vivier, Howie, Scott, Melunsky
- Case number
- 77/97
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Van Heerden, Vivier, Howie, Scott, Melunsky
- Case number
- 77/97
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that there was no unequivocal evidence that Volkskas, through Jacobs or otherwise, represented to the appellant that a new lease agreement had already been concluded. The appellant's own testimony did not support such a representation, and Jacobs denied making any such statement. The conduct relied upon by the appellant, namely the acceptance of payment and delivery of the property, was consistent with an interim arrangement and did not amount to a representation releasing the appellant from his suretyship. Accordingly, the appeal could not succeed.
Court disposition
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed with costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Philip John Fivaz
AppellantABSA Bank Beperk
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Amount Paid by Mc Gregor: ZAR 5,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether Volkskas made a representation to the appellant that a new lease agreement had been concluded between McGregor and Volkskas.
- 02
Whether the appellant was released from his suretyship obligations by such representation or conduct.
- 03
Whether conduct by Volkskas could constitute a representation leading to the appellant's release.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant argued that Volkskas, either through explicit statements or conduct, represented that a new lease agreement had been concluded, which would release him from his suretyship. He relied on statements allegedly made by Jacobs and on the acceptance of payment and delivery of the property to McGregor as indicative of such a representation.
- Respondent
- The respondent denied that any representation was made that a new contract had already been concluded. Jacobs denied making such statements, and it was argued that the conduct relied upon by the appellant was consistent with an interim arrangement and did not amount to a representation releasing the appellant from his obligations.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
General principles of South African contract law
A party seeking to rely on a representation must prove that such representation was made unequivocally.
- 02
General principles of South African law of suretyship
Conduct must be clear and unambiguous to constitute a representation capable of releasing a surety.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that there was no unequivocal evidence that Volkskas, through Jacobs or otherwise, represented to the appellant that a new lease agreement had already been concluded. The appellant's own testimony did not support such a representation, and Jacobs denied making any such statement. The conduct relied upon by the appellant, namely the acceptance of payment and delivery of the property, was consistent with an interim arrangement and did not amount to a representation releasing the appellant from his suretyship. Accordingly, the appeal could not succeed.
Obiter and limits
- Other arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant were without merit and need not be mentioned.
- The acceptance of payment and delivery of the property was compatible with an interim arrangement, not with the conclusion of a new contract.
Court disposition
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
- The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Appeal
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of Appeal
Judgment
DIE HOOGSTE HOF VAN APPèL
VAN SUID AFRIKA
Saaknommer: 77/97
Insake die appèl van
Philip John Fivaz Appellant
en
ABSA Bank Beperk Respondent
Coram: VAN HEERDEN AHR, VIVIER, HOWIE, SCOTT ARR en MELUNSKY WndAR
Datum van Verhoor: 10 November 1998
Datum gelewer: 10 November 1998
UITSPRAAK
VAN HEERDEN AHR:
Afgesien van ander oorwegings kan die appèl nie slaag nie tensy bewys is dat Volkskas teenoor die appellant die voorstelling gemaak het dat ‘n nuwe huurkontrak ten opsigte van die voorhaker tussen McGregor en Volkskas aangegaan was.
Ek bespeur nie in die appellant se eie getuienis ‘n ondubbelsinnige aanduiding dat Jacobs so ‘n voorstelling gemaak het nie. Die appellant het bont gepraat, maar by ontleding van sy getuienis het Jacobs volgens hom slegs gesê dat indien ‘n nuwe kontrak gesluit sou word (d.w.s. in die toekoms) die appellant van sy borgstelling bevry sou wees.
Hoe dit ook al sy, Jacobs ontken dat hy te kenne gegee het dat ‘n nuwe kontrak reeds gesluit was, en aangesien hy geweet het dat dit nog nie gebeur het nie is dit heel onwaarskynlik dat hy so iets sou gesê het.
Die appellant se advokaat het ook gesteun op ‘n voorstelling wat Volkskas deur gedrag sou gemaak het. Die betrokke betoog stuit egter teen die nadere besonderhede wat tot die verweerskrif verstrek is. In antwoord op ‘n vraag hoe Volkskas die skyn, waarop die appellant gesteun het, verwek het, is naamlik gesê dat die appellant aldus meegedeel was. Daar was gevolglik geen sprake van gedrag — in teenstelling tot ‘n mededeling — waarop die appellant hom beroep het nie.
Die betoog het in elk geval weinig om die lyf. Die aanvaarding deur Volkskas van die bedrag van R5 000 wat McGregor betaal het en die lewering van die voorhaker aan hom, was immers goed vereenselwigbaar met een of ander tussentydse reëling wat met McGregor aangegaan was.
Ander argumente wat namens die appellant geopper is, is eweneens sonder pit en hoef nie vermeld te word nie.
Die appèl word met koste afgewys.
HJO VAN HEERDEN
ADJUNK HOOFREGTER
STEM SAAM:
VIVIER AR
HOWIE AR
SCOTT AR
MELUNSKY WndAR
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.