Haunt v Paramount Property (2015/32685) [2020] ZAGPJHC 151 (21 May 2020)

Haunt v Paramount Property (2015/32685) [2020] ZAGPJHC 151 (21 May 2020)

The court found that the plaintiff had established on a balance of probabilities that the parties’ common intention was for all goods listed in the Sheriff’s inventory to be present in the warehouse at the time of the agreement and to be released to the plaintiff. The evidence, including oral testimony and correspondence, supported the plaintiff’s version. The defendant’s failure to call key witnesses, particularly Mr Mennen, justified an adverse inference. The court held that the agreement should be rectified to reflect the parties’ true intention and that the implied terms sought by the plaintiff should be read into the contract. The plaintiff discharged the burden of proof, and the...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPJHC 151
Parties
Plaintiff: Sean Peter Haunt; Defendant: Paramount Property
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 May 2020
Case Number
2015/32685
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Only; Quantum Postponed Sine Die
Outcome
Plaintiff succeeds on rectification; agreement rectified to reflect the parties’ common intention; costs awarded to plaintiff; quantum postponed sine die.
Judges
E Molahlehi
Legal Topics
Rectification of Contract, Implied Terms, Tacit Terms, Burden of Proof, Parol Evidence Rule
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Rectification of Contract Implied Terms Tacit Terms Burden of Proof Parol Evidence Rule

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

Parties

Sean Peter Haunt

Plaintiff

Paramount Property

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Only; Quantum Postponed Sine Die

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to rectification of the written agreement to reflect the true intention of the parties.
  2. 2 Whether implied or tacit terms should be read into the agreement regarding the presence and release of goods listed in the Sheriff’s inventory.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff discharged the burden of proof in the face of mutually destructive versions.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff had established on a balance of probabilities that the parties’ common intention was for all goods listed in the Sheriff’s inventory to be present in the warehouse at the time of the agreement and to be released to the plaintiff. The evidence, including oral testimony and correspondence, supported the plaintiff’s version. The defendant’s failure to call key witnesses, particularly Mr Mennen, justified an adverse inference. The court held that the agreement should be rectified to reflect the parties’ true intention and that the implied terms sought by the plaintiff should be read into the contract. The plaintiff discharged the burden of proof, and the...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff succeeds on rectification; agreement rectified to reflect the parties’ common intention; costs awarded to plaintiff; quantum postponed sine die.

Orders

  • The written agreement concluded by the parties on 19 March 2015 is rectified to read: 'The Creditor shall ensure that all the goods set out in Annexure “A” (SP2) to this agreement shall be available for collection by Debtor.'
  • The issue of quantum is postponed sine die.