L M and Others v T M (343/2019) [2020] ZASCA 43 (21 April 2020)

L M and Others v T M (343/2019) [2020] ZASCA 43 (21 April 2020)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that clause 2 of the settlement agreement did not make the obligation to pay R5,5 million conditional on the sale of game or the sufficiency of proceeds from such sale. The obligation to pay was unconditional, and the specified payment method was merely procedural. The failure of Mr Williams to purchase the game did not extinguish the appellants’ obligation to pay. Instead, the amount became payable within a reasonable time after it became evident that the intended payment method would not materialize. The court rejected the appellants’ argument that supervening impossibility rendered the agreement void, finding that the respondent’s right to payment was...

Citation
[2020] ZASCA 43
Parties
Appellant: L M; Appellant: H M NO; Appellant: PP Marè (Hoëveld) Boerdery (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: T M
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 April 2020
Case Number
343/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
Judges
Cachalia, Wallis, Saldulker, Van der Merwe, Makgoka
Legal Topics
Settlement Agreement Enforcement, Interpretation of Contracts, Accrual System, Supervening Impossibility, Joint and Several Liability
Family and Children Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Settlement Agreement Enforcement Interpretation of Contracts Accrual System Supervening Impossibility Joint and Several Liability

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L M

Appellant

H M NO

Appellant

PP Marè (Hoëveld) Boerdery (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

T M

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 2 of the settlement agreement made payment of R5,5 million conditional on the sale of game and sufficiency of proceeds.
  2. 2 Whether failure of the envisaged source of payment affected the obligation to pay.
  3. 3 Whether the appellants are liable to pay the respondent R5,5 million despite the failure of the specified payment method.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that clause 2 of the settlement agreement did not make the obligation to pay R5,5 million conditional on the sale of game or the sufficiency of proceeds from such sale. The obligation to pay was unconditional, and the specified payment method was merely procedural. The failure of Mr Williams to purchase the game did not extinguish the appellants’ obligation to pay. Instead, the amount became payable within a reasonable time after it became evident that the intended payment method would not materialize. The court rejected the appellants’ argument that supervening impossibility rendered the agreement void, finding that the respondent’s right to payment was...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

Orders

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