Goliath and Another v Chicory SA (Pty) Ltd (3382/2018) [2022] ZAECMKHC 63 (13 September 2022)

Goliath and Another v Chicory SA (Pty) Ltd (3382/2018) [2022] ZAECMKHC 63 (13 September 2022)

The court found, on a balance of probabilities, that the verbal agreement commenced in October-November 2015 and was for two growing seasons. The drought did not constitute supervening impossibility, as Mr Goliath was able to cultivate and supply chicory, albeit at a loss. The defendant was entitled to deduct all reasonable farming and transport expenses from the amount owed, including those incurred prior to the written lease agreement. The claim that the defendant was obligated to pay VAT to SARS was not supported by evidence. The plaintiffs failed to prove the terms of the verbal agreement as pleaded, and the defendant succeeded in its counterclaim for the net loss incurred. Costs were...

Citation
[2022] ZAECMKHC 63
Parties
Plaintiff: Cecil Goliath; Plaintiff: Evergreen Everfresh (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Chicory SA (Pty) Ltd
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 September 2022
Case Number
3382/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claim dismissed with costs; defendant's counterclaim upheld.
Judges
Laing
Legal Topics
Verbal Contract, Supervening Impossibility, Counterclaim, Deduction of Expenses, Tacit Terms, Public Policy
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Verbal Contract Supervening Impossibility Counterclaim Deduction of Expenses Tacit Terms Public Policy

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cecil Goliath

Plaintiff

Evergreen Everfresh (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Chicory SA (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the parties entered into a binding verbal agreement and its terms.
  2. 2 Whether the drought constituted supervening impossibility extinguishing contractual obligations.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant was entitled to deduct certain farming and transport expenses from the amount owed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, on a balance of probabilities, that the verbal agreement commenced in October-November 2015 and was for two growing seasons. The drought did not constitute supervening impossibility, as Mr Goliath was able to cultivate and supply chicory, albeit at a loss. The defendant was entitled to deduct all reasonable farming and transport expenses from the amount owed, including those incurred prior to the written lease agreement. The claim that the defendant was obligated to pay VAT to SARS was not supported by evidence. The plaintiffs failed to prove the terms of the verbal agreement as pleaded, and the defendant succeeded in its counterclaim for the net loss incurred. Costs were...

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claim dismissed with costs; defendant's counterclaim upheld.

Orders

  • The plaintiffs' claim is dismissed with costs, to be borne by the plaintiffs jointly and severally.
  • The defendant's counterclaim succeeds; the first plaintiff is ordered to pay the defendant R213,697.12.