Formex Engineering Pty Ltd v Ivo Huisman & Associates CC (CA 239/2011) [2013] ZAECGHC 110 (17 October 2013)

Formex Engineering Pty Ltd v Ivo Huisman & Associates CC (CA 239/2011) [2013] ZAECGHC 110 (17 October 2013)

The court found that the probabilities overwhelmingly favoured the respondent's version that an oral agreement was concluded mandating the respondent to proceed with the design and tender stage for raising the roof structure. The evidence showed that the issue of raising the roof was discussed from the outset and that the respondent was instructed to prepare drawings and obtain quotations. The respondent's mandate was not terminated on 14 December 2007, but only in January 2008 after tenders were submitted. The respondent was entitled to fees calculated according to the Gazetted tariff based on the contract price for the work. The trial court's findings on credibility and probabilities...

Citation
[2013] ZAECGHC 110
Parties
Appellant: Formex Engineering (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Ivo Huisman & Associates CC
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 October 2013
Case Number
CA 239/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Trial Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
G Goosen, N Dambuza, B Hartle
Legal Topics
Oral Contract, Professional Services Fees, Credibility of Witnesses, Onus of Proof
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Oral Contract Professional Services Fees Credibility of Witnesses Onus of Proof

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Formex Engineering (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Ivo Huisman & Associates CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Trial Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an oral agreement for professional engineering services was concluded between the parties.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was mandated to proceed to the design and tender stage for raising the roof structure.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's mandate was terminated on 14 December 2007 or only in January 2008.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the probabilities overwhelmingly favoured the respondent's version that an oral agreement was concluded mandating the respondent to proceed with the design and tender stage for raising the roof structure. The evidence showed that the issue of raising the roof was discussed from the outset and that the respondent was instructed to prepare drawings and obtain quotations. The respondent's mandate was not terminated on 14 December 2007, but only in January 2008 after tenders were submitted. The respondent was entitled to fees calculated according to the Gazetted tariff based on the contract price for the work. The trial court's findings on credibility and probabilities...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.