Moscak v N Goodwin Design (Pty) Ltd. (329/91) [1993] ZASCA 179 (25 November 1993)

Moscak v N Goodwin Design (Pty) Ltd. (329/91) [1993] ZASCA 179 (25 November 1993)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was justified in using R50,000.00 as the base figure for the contract price, as this was supported by the pleadings, the evidence of the respondent's witnesses, and the conduct of the appellant during trial and cross-examination. The court further found that the deductions for remedial work, based on the jointly compiled 'snagging list' and the respondent's quantification, were reasonable and substantiated by the evidence. The appellant's additional claims for further deductions were either trivial or unrelated to the contract price computation. Accordingly, there was no basis to interfere with the trial court's factual findings or its...

Citation
[1993] ZASCA 179
Parties
Appellant: Vladislav Moscak; Respondent: N Goodwin Design (Pty) Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 November 1993
Case Number
329/91
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Cape Provincial Division; Judgment on Merits
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of the application for leave to appeal.
Judges
Botha, Goldstone, Krieger
Legal Topics
Contractual Remuneration, Tacit Terms, Quantum of Damages, Remedial Work Deductions
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Contractual Remuneration Tacit Terms Quantum of Damages Remedial Work Deductions

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

Parties

Vladislav Moscak

Appellant

N Goodwin Design (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Cape Provincial Division; Judgment on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in taking R50,000.00 as the starting point for the calculation of the contract price.
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in deducting the 'snagging list' plus one additional item for remedial work.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was justified in using R50,000.00 as the base figure for the contract price, as this was supported by the pleadings, the evidence of the respondent's witnesses, and the conduct of the appellant during trial and cross-examination. The court further found that the deductions for remedial work, based on the jointly compiled 'snagging list' and the respondent's quantification, were reasonable and substantiated by the evidence. The appellant's additional claims for further deductions were either trivial or unrelated to the contract price computation. Accordingly, there was no basis to interfere with the trial court's factual findings or its...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of the application for leave to appeal.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of the application for leave to appeal.