Kretzmer v Glezerson (11682/13) [2013] ZAGPJHC 185 (5 June 2013)

Kretzmer v Glezerson (11682/13) [2013] ZAGPJHC 185 (5 June 2013)

The court found that the respondent's reliance on an oral agreement was precluded by the written contract's non-variation and non-waiver clauses, which require any alteration to be in writing and signed by both parties. The respondent's defence based on misrepresentation was not bona fide, as he continued making payments after allegedly discovering the fraud and did not raise the issue until the answering affidavit. The evidence showed that the alleged fraud related to the conduct of a third party, not the applicant, and the respondent's own correspondence did not implicate the applicant. The respondent's allegations failed to generate a genuine dispute of fact. Accordingly, the applicant...

Citation
[2013] ZAGPJHC 185
Parties
Applicant: Basil Kretzmer; Respondent: Geoffrey Glezerson
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 June 2013
Case Number
11682/13
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment granted in favour of the applicant for payment of the outstanding amount, interest, and costs.
Judges
P L Carstensen
Legal Topics
Sale of Members Interest, Contractual Variation, Misrepresentation, Specific Performance
Commercial and Corporate Sale of Members Interest Contractual Variation Misrepresentation Specific Performance

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Basil Kretzmer

Applicant

Geoffrey Glezerson

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is obliged to pay the outstanding purchase price under the written agreement.
  2. 2 Whether an alleged oral agreement or misrepresentation relieves the respondent from payment obligations.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's defence raises a bona fide dispute of fact warranting referral to trial.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's reliance on an oral agreement was precluded by the written contract's non-variation and non-waiver clauses, which require any alteration to be in writing and signed by both parties. The respondent's defence based on misrepresentation was not bona fide, as he continued making payments after allegedly discovering the fraud and did not raise the issue until the answering affidavit. The evidence showed that the alleged fraud related to the conduct of a third party, not the applicant, and the respondent's own correspondence did not implicate the applicant. The respondent's allegations failed to generate a genuine dispute of fact. Accordingly, the applicant...

Court Disposition

Judgment granted in favour of the applicant for payment of the outstanding amount, interest, and costs.

Orders

  • The respondent must pay the applicant the sum of R236,000.00.
  • The respondent must pay interest on the aforesaid amount at 15.5% per annum from 7 November 2012 to date of payment.