Griesel and Others v Haasbroek (538/2016) [2017] ZASCA 39 (30 March 2017)

Griesel and Others v Haasbroek (538/2016) [2017] ZASCA 39 (30 March 2017)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that a sale agreement was concluded between Dr Griesel and Mr Haasbroek, and that Mr Haasbroek expressly assumed the risk of death or injury to the buffalo during the sedation operation. The death of the buffalo occurred as a direct result of the operation, which was the specific risk envisaged and agreed upon by the parties. The court rejected the argument that Dr Griesel’s conduct contributed to or caused the death, finding no evidence to support such a conclusion. The common law principles regarding risk in sale agreements and supervening impossibility were not applicable due to the express contractual term. Accordingly, Mr Haasbroek was held liable...

Citation
[2017] ZASCA 39
Parties
Appellant: Dr David Griesel; Appellant: Glaudina Boerdery (Edms) Beperk; Appellant: Devenco Investments 60 (Edms) Beperk; Respondent: Piet Haasbroek
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 March 2017
Case Number
538/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the North West Division of the High Court, Mahikeng, Sitting as a Full Court on Appeal From the Trial Court.
Outcome
Appeal upheld with costs. Order of the full court set aside and substituted with judgment in favour of Dr Griesel for the purchase price and costs.
Judges
Leach, Willis, Mbha, Molemela, Gorven
Legal Topics
Sale of Goods, Passing of Risk, Specific Performance, Contractual Terms
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Sale of Goods Passing of Risk Specific Performance Contractual Terms

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

Parties

Dr David Griesel

Appellant

Glaudina Boerdery (Edms) Beperk

Appellant

Devenco Investments 60 (Edms) Beperk

Appellant

Piet Haasbroek

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the North West Division of the High Court, Mahikeng, Sitting as a Full Court on Appeal From the Trial Court.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a sale agreement for the buffalo was concluded between Dr Griesel and Mr Haasbroek.
  2. 2 Whether Mr Haasbroek expressly assumed the risk of death or injury to the buffalo during the sedation operation.
  3. 3 Whether the death of the buffalo was caused by the risk envisaged in the agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that a sale agreement was concluded between Dr Griesel and Mr Haasbroek, and that Mr Haasbroek expressly assumed the risk of death or injury to the buffalo during the sedation operation. The death of the buffalo occurred as a direct result of the operation, which was the specific risk envisaged and agreed upon by the parties. The court rejected the argument that Dr Griesel’s conduct contributed to or caused the death, finding no evidence to support such a conclusion. The common law principles regarding risk in sale agreements and supervening impossibility were not applicable due to the express contractual term. Accordingly, Mr Haasbroek was held liable...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld with costs. Order of the full court set aside and substituted with judgment in favour of Dr Griesel for the purchase price and costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The order of the full court of the North West Division of the High Court, Mahikeng, is set aside and substituted.