JNJ Coffins CC and Others v CG Casket & Coffin Manufactures (3807/2013) [2014] ZAFSHC 58 (24 April 2014)

JNJ Coffins CC and Others v CG Casket & Coffin Manufactures (3807/2013) [2014] ZAFSHC 58 (24 April 2014)

The court found that the particulars of claim failed to comply with Rule 18(6) as the credit application was not a binding contract but merely an application requiring approval, which was neither pleaded nor annexed. The absence of the plaintiff's signature and lack of evidence of acceptance rendered the contract incomplete. The deed of suretyship was also found defective for failing to identify the creditor and lacking necessary annexures, thus not complying with section 6 of the General Law Amendment Act 50 of 1956. The court held that the pleadings were excipiable on both grounds and the principle of quasi mutual assent was not applicable as it was not specifically pleaded.

Citation
[2014] ZAFSHC 58
Parties
Applicant: JNJ Coffins CC; Applicant: Jacques van Rensburg; Applicant: Nadine van Rensburg; Respondent: CG Casket & Coffin Manufacturers
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 April 2014
Case Number
3807/2013
Procedural Posture
Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Exceptions upheld with costs; plaintiff granted leave to amend papers within 14 days.
Judges
S.E. Motloung
Legal Topics
Pleading Requirements, Breach of Contract, Suretyship, Rule 18 6 Compliance
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Pleading Requirements Breach of Contract Suretyship Rule 18 6 Compliance

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JNJ Coffins CC

Applicant

Jacques van Rensburg

Applicant

Nadine van Rensburg

Applicant

CG Casket & Coffin Manufacturers

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the particulars of claim disclose sufficient averments to sustain a cause of action for breach of contract.
  2. 2 Whether the written credit application constitutes a binding contract between the parties.
  3. 3 Whether the deed of suretyship complies with statutory requirements and is valid.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the particulars of claim failed to comply with Rule 18(6) as the credit application was not a binding contract but merely an application requiring approval, which was neither pleaded nor annexed. The absence of the plaintiff's signature and lack of evidence of acceptance rendered the contract incomplete. The deed of suretyship was also found defective for failing to identify the creditor and lacking necessary annexures, thus not complying with section 6 of the General Law Amendment Act 50 of 1956. The court held that the pleadings were excipiable on both grounds and the principle of quasi mutual assent was not applicable as it was not specifically pleaded.

Court Disposition

Exceptions upheld with costs; plaintiff granted leave to amend papers within 14 days.

Orders

  • The two exceptions are upheld with costs.
  • The plaintiff is given 14 (fourteen) days to amend its papers.