Langeberg Stene BK v Pick-A-Brick and Others (754/04) [2008] ZANCHC 9 (15 February 2008)

Langeberg Stene BK v Pick-A-Brick and Others (754/04) [2008] ZANCHC 9 (15 February 2008)

The court found that although Krauze was initially a party to the oral agreement with the plaintiff, he withdrew from the contract after 25 March 2002 due to dissatisfaction with new requirements imposed by the plaintiff. From that point, Sure Focus Thirty Six CC became the contracting party. The plaintiff failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, the quantum of its claim against Krauze, as the relevant invoice lacked necessary details regarding price, loading, and transport costs, and there was insufficient evidence of agreed terms for all types of bricks delivered. Consequently, the claim against Krauze was dismissed for failure to discharge the burden of proof.

Citation
[2008] ZANCHC 9
Parties
Plaintiff: Langeberg Stene BK; Defendant: Pick-A-Brick; Defendant: FJ Koen; Defendant: HJ Krauze; Defendant: Sure Focus Thirty Six CC
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 February 2008
Case Number
754/04
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim against the third defendant (Krauze) is dismissed.
Judges
Majiedt R
Legal Topics
Contractual Liability, Proof of Quantum, Oral Agreement, Burden of Proof
Commercial and Corporate Contractual Liability Proof of Quantum Oral Agreement Burden of Proof

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Langeberg Stene BK

Plaintiff

Pick-A-Brick

Defendant

FJ Koen

Defendant

HJ Krauze

Defendant

Sure Focus Thirty Six CC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Who contracted with the plaintiff and is liable for payment of outstanding amounts for bricks delivered.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff proved the quantum of its claim against the third defendant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although Krauze was initially a party to the oral agreement with the plaintiff, he withdrew from the contract after 25 March 2002 due to dissatisfaction with new requirements imposed by the plaintiff. From that point, Sure Focus Thirty Six CC became the contracting party. The plaintiff failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, the quantum of its claim against Krauze, as the relevant invoice lacked necessary details regarding price, loading, and transport costs, and there was insufficient evidence of agreed terms for all types of bricks delivered. Consequently, the claim against Krauze was dismissed for failure to discharge the burden of proof.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim against the third defendant (Krauze) is dismissed.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's claim against Krauze is dismissed.
  • Each party is ordered to pay its own costs, including wasted costs occasioned by the postponement of 6 November 2006.