Lezmin 3038 Handeldrywend AS CG Botha Boerdery v Du Plessis (642/2015) [2015] ZAFSHC 161 (20 August 2015)

Lezmin 3038 Handeldrywend AS CG Botha Boerdery v Du Plessis (642/2015) [2015] ZAFSHC 161 (20 August 2015)

The court found that there were genuine disputes of fact regarding the material and essential terms of the contract, specifically the purchase price and the date of final performance. The probabilities were evenly balanced as to whether the rams were sold for R120,000.00 or R125,000.00. The respondent unambiguously disputed the applicant’s version, and oral evidence and cross-examination were necessary to resolve these disputes. Accordingly, the matter was postponed for the hearing of viva voce evidence to determine the exact terms and performance obligations under the contract.

Citation
[2015] ZAFSHC 161
Parties
Applicant: Lezmin 3038 Handeldrywend AS CG Botha Boerdery; Respondent: Tobie Du Plessis
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 August 2015
Case Number
642/2015
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Postponement for Oral Evidence; Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Application postponed for oral evidence; costs reserved.
Judges
Mbhele
Legal Topics
Oral Contract, Material Breach, Rescission of Contract, Ownership Transfer, Dispute of Fact
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Oral Contract Material Breach Rescission of Contract Ownership Transfer Dispute of Fact

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

Parties

Lezmin 3038 Handeldrywend AS CG Botha Boerdery

Applicant

Tobie Du Plessis

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Postponement for Oral Evidence; Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant had locus standi to cancel the contract.
  2. 2 Whether the purchase price for the two yellow rams was R120,000.00 or R125,000.00.
  3. 3 Whether ownership of the rams passed on delivery or on final payment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there were genuine disputes of fact regarding the material and essential terms of the contract, specifically the purchase price and the date of final performance. The probabilities were evenly balanced as to whether the rams were sold for R120,000.00 or R125,000.00. The respondent unambiguously disputed the applicant’s version, and oral evidence and cross-examination were necessary to resolve these disputes. Accordingly, the matter was postponed for the hearing of viva voce evidence to determine the exact terms and performance obligations under the contract.

Court Disposition

Application postponed for oral evidence; costs reserved.

Orders

  • The application is postponed to 05 October 2015 for certification as ready for hearing of viva voce evidence by the pre-trial judge.
  • The issues to be determined are: (1) the exact purchase price for the sale of the two yellow rams; (2) whether ownership passed on delivery or on final payment; (3) whether an indefinite extension for payment was granted.