Heaney and Another v Petersen (515/2009) [2011] ZAECPEHC 38 (6 September 2011)

Heaney and Another v Petersen (515/2009) [2011] ZAECPEHC 38 (6 September 2011)

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to discharge the onus of proving that Mrs Petersen was not authorised to issue the undertaking for payment to Prestige Auto Sales. The evidence of Mrs Petersen and her conveyancing clerk, Mrs Kolesky, was found to be more credible and probable than that of the plaintiffs. The court accepted that oral authorisation was given by Heaney, and that Mrs Petersen acted in accordance with established practice and trust developed through prior dealings. The absence of written confirmation did not, in itself, constitute negligence or breach of contract. The plaintiffs' claim was dismissed as they did not establish that Mrs Petersen acted without authority...

Citation
[2011] ZAECPEHC 38
Parties
Plaintiff: Brent Rodger Heaney; Plaintiff: Shaun Smith; Defendant: Janice Petersen
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 September 2011
Case Number
515/2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claims dismissed; judgment for the defendant with costs, except for costs occasioned by postponements.
Judges
F Kroon
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Conveyancing Negligence, Authority for Payment, Oral Vs Written Authorisation
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Breach of Contract Conveyancing Negligence Authority for Payment Oral Vs Written Authorisation

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

Parties

Brent Rodger Heaney

Plaintiff

Shaun Smith

Plaintiff

Janice Petersen

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant, Mrs Petersen, was authorised by the plaintiffs to issue an undertaking for payment of R195,000.00 to Prestige Auto Sales from the proceeds of the property transaction.
  2. 2 Whether Mrs Petersen acted negligently in failing to obtain written confirmation of the plaintiffs' authorisation for the undertaking.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the amount paid to Prestige Auto Sales from Mrs Petersen on the basis of breach of contract or negligence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to discharge the onus of proving that Mrs Petersen was not authorised to issue the undertaking for payment to Prestige Auto Sales. The evidence of Mrs Petersen and her conveyancing clerk, Mrs Kolesky, was found to be more credible and probable than that of the plaintiffs. The court accepted that oral authorisation was given by Heaney, and that Mrs Petersen acted in accordance with established practice and trust developed through prior dealings. The absence of written confirmation did not, in itself, constitute negligence or breach of contract. The plaintiffs' claim was dismissed as they did not establish that Mrs Petersen acted without authority...

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claims dismissed; judgment for the defendant with costs, except for costs occasioned by postponements.

Orders

  • Subject to the costs order, the plaintiffs’ claims are dismissed and judgment is given in the defendant’s favour with costs.
  • No order is made in respect of the costs occasioned by the postponements on 4 February 2011 and 6 July 2011.