Jokari SA (Pty) Ltd v Reebok International Ltd (250/92) [1994] ZASCA 136; 1994 (4) SA 785 (AD); (29 September 1994)

Jokari SA (Pty) Ltd v Reebok International Ltd (250/92) [1994] ZASCA 136; 1994 (4) SA 785 (AD); (29 September 1994)

The court held that the New Agreement between Reebok and Jokari was a sole distribution agreement and did not create a contractual obligation for Reebok to supply specific goods ordered by Jokari. The arrangements for purchase required Jokari to contract directly with Asco, the supplier, and no contract of sale existed between Reebok and Jokari. Reebok's role was limited to quality control and receipt of royalties, and it did not manufacture or supply goods directly. The evidence did not support the contention that Asco acted as Reebok's agent. Therefore, Reebok was not liable for damages claimed by Jokari for alleged breach of contract.

Citation
[1994] ZASCA 136
Parties
Appellant: Jokari SA (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Reebok International Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 September 1994
Case Number
250/92
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of Transvaal Provincial Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
C.P. Joubert, EM Grosskopf, Smalberger, Vivier, Nienaber
Legal Topics
Distribution Agreement, Breach of Contract, Agency, Damages for Breach, Exclusive Distributorship
Commercial and Corporate Distribution Agreement Breach of Contract Agency Damages for Breach Exclusive Distributorship

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jokari SA (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Reebok International Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of Transvaal Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was Reebok contractually obliged to supply Jokari with the goods ordered under the New Agreement?
  2. 2 Did the arrangements between Reebok, Jokari, and Asco constitute a contract of sale between Reebok and Jokari?
  3. 3 Was Asco acting as agent for Reebok in the supply of goods to Jokari?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the New Agreement between Reebok and Jokari was a sole distribution agreement and did not create a contractual obligation for Reebok to supply specific goods ordered by Jokari. The arrangements for purchase required Jokari to contract directly with Asco, the supplier, and no contract of sale existed between Reebok and Jokari. Reebok's role was limited to quality control and receipt of royalties, and it did not manufacture or supply goods directly. The evidence did not support the contention that Asco acted as Reebok's agent. Therefore, Reebok was not liable for damages claimed by Jokari for alleged breach of contract.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.