Hentiq 1320 (Pty) Ltd v Mediterranean Shipping Company SA Geneva (166/2011) [2012] ZASCA 56; 2012 (6) SA 88 (SCA) (30 March 2012)

Hentiq 1320 (Pty) Ltd v Mediterranean Shipping Company SA Geneva (166/2011) [2012] ZASCA 56; 2012 (6) SA 88 (SCA) (30 March 2012)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant failed to prove any legally recoverable loss. The contractual structure involved back-to-back sales, with Kingsburg as the intermediary between White Fields and the appellant. The appellant had no contractual link with White Fields and could only look to Kingsburg for performance. Kingsburg undertook to deliver rice of a certain description but failed to do so. Legally, the appellant was entitled to reject the rice and refuse payment to Kingsburg. Any payment made to Kingsburg was based on a moral, not legal, obligation, and such payment does not give rise to a recoverable loss against the respondent. The Par Excellence principle was...

Citation
[2012] ZASCA 56
Parties
Appellant: Hentiq 1320 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Mediterranean Shipping Company SA Geneva
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 March 2012
Case Number
166/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Kwa Zulu Natal High Court, Durban
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Farlam, Navsa, Snyders, Malan, Plasket
Legal Topics
Bills of Lading, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Recoverable Loss, Contractual Liability, Back to Back Sales
Admiralty and Maritime Commercial and Corporate Bills of Lading Fraudulent Misrepresentation Recoverable Loss Contractual Liability Back to Back Sales

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hentiq 1320 (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Mediterranean Shipping Company SA Geneva

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Kwa Zulu Natal High Court, Durban

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant suffered a legally recoverable loss as a result of the misdescription of cargo in the bills of lading.
  2. 2 Whether a moral obligation to pay a third party constitutes a legal liability recoverable from the respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the Par Excellence principle applies to the appellant's claim for damages.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant failed to prove any legally recoverable loss. The contractual structure involved back-to-back sales, with Kingsburg as the intermediary between White Fields and the appellant. The appellant had no contractual link with White Fields and could only look to Kingsburg for performance. Kingsburg undertook to deliver rice of a certain description but failed to do so. Legally, the appellant was entitled to reject the rice and refuse payment to Kingsburg. Any payment made to Kingsburg was based on a moral, not legal, obligation, and such payment does not give rise to a recoverable loss against the respondent. The Par Excellence principle was...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.