Maas v Bosal Waterplan (Eiendoms) Bpk. (489/89) [1991] ZASCA 40 (28 March 1991)

Maas v Bosal Waterplan (Eiendoms) Bpk. (489/89) [1991] ZASCA 40 (28 March 1991)

The court found that the warranty provided by the respondent was limited to the proper and timely repair of mechanical and electrical defects in the irrigation equipment, and did not expressly or impliedly cover consequential crop losses. Although the respondent undertook to repair faults, the evidence did not establish that repairs were performed negligently or untimely to the extent that they caused the alleged crop losses. The appellant failed to provide sufficient and reliable evidence to quantify his damages or to demonstrate a causal link between the alleged breach of warranty and the losses suffered. The presence of other factors, such as hail damage and uncertainty regarding the...

Citation
[1991] ZASCA 40
Parties
Appellant: Michael Maas; Respondent: Bosal Waterplan (Eiendoms) Beperk
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 March 1991
Case Number
489/89
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Transvaal Provincial Division; Judgment Delivered After Full Hearing
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
Judges
Joubert, Milne, Goldstone, Nienaber, Preiss
Legal Topics
Sale of Goods, Contractual Warranty, Quantification of Damages, Causation, Burden of Proof
Commercial and Corporate Sale of Goods Contractual Warranty Quantification of Damages Causation 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Maas

Appellant

Bosal Waterplan (Eiendoms) Beperk

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Transvaal Provincial Division; Judgment Delivered After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent breached the warranty relating to the irrigation equipment.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant suffered damages as a result of the alleged breach.
  3. 3 Whether the damages claimed were causally linked to the breach of warranty.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the warranty provided by the respondent was limited to the proper and timely repair of mechanical and electrical defects in the irrigation equipment, and did not expressly or impliedly cover consequential crop losses. Although the respondent undertook to repair faults, the evidence did not establish that repairs were performed negligently or untimely to the extent that they caused the alleged crop losses. The appellant failed to provide sufficient and reliable evidence to quantify his damages or to demonstrate a causal link between the alleged breach of warranty and the losses suffered. The presence of other factors, such as hail damage and uncertainty regarding the...

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The appellant is ordered to pay the costs of the appeal, including the costs of two advocates.