Londlin Enterprises CC v Wang On Property CO (Pty) Ltd (77249/2010) [2013] ZAGPPHC 491 (5 December 2013)

Londlin Enterprises CC v Wang On Property CO (Pty) Ltd (77249/2010) [2013] ZAGPPHC 491 (5 December 2013)

The court found that the evidence did not support the existence of a second agreement as alleged by the defendant. The defendant's witnesses were unreliable and their versions were riddled with contradictions and improbabilities. The plaintiff's evidence was consistent, supported by documentation, and credible. The discount was conditional on timely payment, which was not made, entitling the plaintiff to revoke it. The defendant failed to discharge the onus of proving a further agreement. Judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for the full claimed amount, plus interest and costs.

Citation
[2013] ZAGPPHC 491
Parties
Plaintiff: Londlin Enterprises CC; Defendant: Wang On Property CO (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 December 2013
Case Number
77249/2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff.
Judges
TM Masipa
Legal Topics
Contractual Dispute, Oral Agreement, Onus of Proof, Payment Claim, Revocation of Discount
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Contractual Dispute Oral Agreement Onus of Proof Payment Claim Revocation of Discount

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 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Londlin Enterprises CC

Plaintiff

Wang On Property CO (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the parties concluded one agreement or a further oral agreement regarding the price for extras.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant discharged the onus to prove the existence and terms of a second agreement.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff was entitled to revoke the discount due to non-payment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the evidence did not support the existence of a second agreement as alleged by the defendant. The defendant's witnesses were unreliable and their versions were riddled with contradictions and improbabilities. The plaintiff's evidence was consistent, supported by documentation, and credible. The discount was conditional on timely payment, which was not made, entitling the plaintiff to revoke it. The defendant failed to discharge the onus of proving a further agreement. Judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for the full claimed amount, plus interest and costs.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff.

Orders

  • The defendant must pay the plaintiff R290,947.20.
  • Interest at 15.5% per annum from 15 November 2010 until date of final payment.