Lawson v Schmidhauser Electrical CC (7596/2007) [2012] ZAWCHC 146 (1 August 2012)

Lawson v Schmidhauser Electrical CC (7596/2007) [2012] ZAWCHC 146 (1 August 2012)

The court found that the plaintiff was not entitled to a full refund of all amounts paid under the contract, as he had benefitted from the defendant's performance, save for defective workmanship and overreaching. The claim for overreaching in respect of time was dismissed due to lack of proof, but the claim for overreaching in respect of labour succeeded, with the court awarding a 10% reduction on labour charges. The plaintiff succeeded in claims for remedial work, locating defects, reburying the cable, and repainting the burnt wall, as these were directly attributable to the defendant's defective workmanship. Claims for intercom and alarm system costs, and damaged components, were...

Citation
[2012] ZAWCHC 146
Parties
Plaintiff: Peter Lawson; Defendant: Schmidhauser Electrical CC
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 August 2012
Case Number
7596/2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Quantum Determination Following Judgment on Merits
Outcome
Plaintiff partially succeeds; defendant ordered to pay specified damages and refund, with interest and costs as set out.
Judges
Moosa
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Quantum of Damages, Unjust Enrichment, Defective Workmanship, Counterclaim Procedure
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Breach of Contract Quantum of Damages Unjust Enrichment Defective Workmanship Counterclaim Procedure

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Lawson

Plaintiff

Schmidhauser Electrical CC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Quantum Determination Following Judgment on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a refund of all amounts paid to the defendant under the contract following breach.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages for defective workmanship and overreaching in respect of time and labour charges.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant is liable for costs incurred by the plaintiff for remedial work and related expenses.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff was not entitled to a full refund of all amounts paid under the contract, as he had benefitted from the defendant's performance, save for defective workmanship and overreaching. The claim for overreaching in respect of time was dismissed due to lack of proof, but the claim for overreaching in respect of labour succeeded, with the court awarding a 10% reduction on labour charges. The plaintiff succeeded in claims for remedial work, locating defects, reburying the cable, and repainting the burnt wall, as these were directly attributable to the defendant's defective workmanship. Claims for intercom and alarm system costs, and damaged components, were...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff partially succeeds; defendant ordered to pay specified damages and refund, with interest and costs as set out.

Orders

  • The defendant shall pay the plaintiff the sum of R116,354.21.
  • The defendant shall refund to the plaintiff the sum of R57,000.