Imperial Select v Pinto and Another (A175/2017) [2018] ZAGPPHC 696 (27 March 2018)

Imperial Select v Pinto and Another (A175/2017) [2018] ZAGPPHC 696 (27 March 2018)

The court found that the first respondent did not waive his right to cancel the contract, as there was no clear intention to abandon the right and his conduct was consistent with seeking remedy for defects rather than surrendering his rights. The appellant failed to prove waiver. The evidence established that the motor vehicle had a serious latent defect in the water pump at the time of sale, which was not known to the respondent and would have deterred him from purchasing the vehicle had he been aware. The regional magistrate correctly applied the principles of actio redhibitoria, and the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 696
Parties
Appellant: Imperial Select; Respondent: Eduardo Jorge Da Silva Abegao Pinto; Respondent: Motor Finance Corporation
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 March 2018
Case Number
A175/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Regional Magistrate's Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Maumela, Rangata
Legal Topics
Sale of Goods, Latent Defects, Actio Redhibitoria, Waiver of Rights, Contract Cancellation
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Sale of Goods Latent Defects Actio Redhibitoria Waiver of Rights Contract Cancellation

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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Imperial Select

Appellant

Eduardo Jorge Da Silva Abegao Pinto

Respondent

Motor Finance Corporation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Regional Magistrate's Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the first respondent waive his right to cancel the contract by submitting the motor vehicle for repairs.
  2. 2 Was the defect on the motor vehicle present at the time of the conclusion of the contract.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first respondent did not waive his right to cancel the contract, as there was no clear intention to abandon the right and his conduct was consistent with seeking remedy for defects rather than surrendering his rights. The appellant failed to prove waiver. The evidence established that the motor vehicle had a serious latent defect in the water pump at the time of sale, which was not known to the respondent and would have deterred him from purchasing the vehicle had he been aware. The regional magistrate correctly applied the principles of actio redhibitoria, and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.