Gargo Motors v Motors (81/85) [1986] ZASCA 69 (29 May 1986)

Gargo Motors v Motors (81/85) [1986] ZASCA 69 (29 May 1986)

The court held that the onus was on the appellant to prove ownership in its rei vindicatio application. The evidence did not support the appellant's contention that the transaction was a cash sale in which ownership would only pass upon payment of the purchase price. The conduct of the appellant's credit manager, Calder, in accepting the cheque and authorising delivery, indicated that he regarded the cheque as tantamount to cash and intended that ownership should pass to Malepe upon delivery. The appellant's failure to take precautions to verify the cheque or ascertain the purchaser's identity further supported this inference. In the absence of evidence from Calder to the contrary, the...

Citation
[1986] ZASCA 69
Parties
Appellant: Cargo Motors; Respondent: G L Motors
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 May 1986
Case Number
81/85
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Witwatersrand Local Division; Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Rabie, Joubert, Hoexter, Hefer, Jacobs
Legal Topics
Ownership Transfer, Cash Sale, Cheque Payment, Rei Vindicatio, Onus of Proof
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Ownership Transfer Cash Sale Cheque Payment Rei Vindicatio 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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cargo Motors

Appellant

G L Motors

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Witwatersrand Local Division; Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant retained ownership of the vehicle after delivery to Malepe when the purchase price was not paid.
  2. 2 Whether the transaction constituted a cash sale, and if so, whether ownership passed only upon payment.
  3. 3 Whether the onus was on the appellant to prove ownership in a rei vindicatio application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the onus was on the appellant to prove ownership in its rei vindicatio application. The evidence did not support the appellant's contention that the transaction was a cash sale in which ownership would only pass upon payment of the purchase price. The conduct of the appellant's credit manager, Calder, in accepting the cheque and authorising delivery, indicated that he regarded the cheque as tantamount to cash and intended that ownership should pass to Malepe upon delivery. The appellant's failure to take precautions to verify the cheque or ascertain the purchaser's identity further supported this inference. In the absence of evidence from Calder to the contrary, the...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

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