Flying Time Carriers CC v Monier Roofing SA (Pty) Ltd (3051/2009) [2011] ZAKZDHC 82 (14 December 2011)

Flying Time Carriers CC v Monier Roofing SA (Pty) Ltd (3051/2009) [2011] ZAKZDHC 82 (14 December 2011)

The court found that the written agreement, as signed, reflected the true intention of the parties, namely a commitment by the defendant to provide three loads of crushed stone per working day for three years. The evidence supported the plaintiff's version that both parties intended such a commitment, and the defendant's subsequent conduct and correspondence did not dispute this obligation. The court granted rectification of certain clauses where errors or omissions were proved to be common mistakes, including the escalation rate and references to parties. The defendant failed to prove its case for rectification of other clauses and did not establish supervening impossibility. The...

Citation
[2011] ZAKZDHC 82
Parties
Plaintiff: Flying Time Carriers CC; Defendant: Monier Roofing SA (Pty) Ltd
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 December 2011
Case Number
3051/2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Liability and Rectification Phase
Outcome
The court declared the terms of the agreement as set out in the written contract, subject to specified rectifications, found the defendant in breach, confirmed the plaintiff's valid cancellation, and held the defendant liable for damages to be proved.
Judges
Ploos van Amstel
Legal Topics
Contract Rectification, Breach of Contract, Damages, Supervening Impossibility, Interpretation of Contracts
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Contract Rectification Breach of Contract Damages Supervening Impossibility Interpretation of Contracts

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

Parties

Flying Time Carriers CC

Plaintiff

Monier Roofing SA (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Liability and Rectification Phase

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What were the terms of the agreement between the parties?
  2. 2 Should the written agreement be rectified in any respect?
  3. 3 Did the defendant breach the agreement by failing to provide three loads of crushed stone per working day?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the written agreement, as signed, reflected the true intention of the parties, namely a commitment by the defendant to provide three loads of crushed stone per working day for three years. The evidence supported the plaintiff's version that both parties intended such a commitment, and the defendant's subsequent conduct and correspondence did not dispute this obligation. The court granted rectification of certain clauses where errors or omissions were proved to be common mistakes, including the escalation rate and references to parties. The defendant failed to prove its case for rectification of other clauses and did not establish supervening impossibility. The...

Court Disposition

The court declared the terms of the agreement as set out in the written contract, subject to specified rectifications, found the defendant in breach, confirmed the plaintiff's valid cancellation, and held the defendant liable for damages to be proved.

Orders

  • It is declared that the terms of the agreement are those set out in the written agreement, subject to specified rectifications as detailed in the judgment.
  • It is declared that the defendant breached the agreement by failing to provide three loads of crushed stone per working day.