Maxidor (Pty) Ltd v Flexware (Pty) Ltd (A352/03) [2005] ZAWCHC 64 (9 September 2005)

Maxidor (Pty) Ltd v Flexware (Pty) Ltd (A352/03) [2005] ZAWCHC 64 (9 September 2005)

The court found that the respondent was not made aware of the terms and conditions on the reverse of the invoice, and the caveat subscriptor and quasi-mutual assent principles did not apply as the terms were not reasonably accessible or brought to the respondent's attention. The warranty was held to be 12 months, but there was no evidence that its operation was limited by product range or installation location. The defects manifested within weeks and were covered by the warranty. The appellant's failure to supply goods free from latent defects constituted a material breach, entitling the respondent to cancel the contract and claim restitution.

Citation
[2005] ZAWCHC 64
Parties
Appellant: Maxidor (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Flexware (Pty) Ltd
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 September 2005
Case Number
A352/03
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Zondi, Desai
Legal Topics
Contract Cancellation, Warranty Breach, Latent Defects, Restitution
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Contract Cancellation Warranty Breach Latent Defects Restitution

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

Parties

Maxidor (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Flexware (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant breached the agreement by supplying security gates unsuitable for external installation.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was entitled to cancellation of the agreement and restitution.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent was bound by terms and conditions on the reverse of the invoice.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent was not made aware of the terms and conditions on the reverse of the invoice, and the caveat subscriptor and quasi-mutual assent principles did not apply as the terms were not reasonably accessible or brought to the respondent's attention. The warranty was held to be 12 months, but there was no evidence that its operation was limited by product range or installation location. The defects manifested within weeks and were covered by the warranty. The appellant's failure to supply goods free from latent defects constituted a material breach, entitling the respondent to cancel the contract and claim restitution.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.