Murray & Roberts Construction Ltd. v Finat Properties (Pty) Ltd. (167/89) [1990] ZASCA 130; [1991] 1 All SA 382 (A) (9 November 1990)

Murray & Roberts Construction Ltd. v Finat Properties (Pty) Ltd. (167/89) [1990] ZASCA 130; [1991] 1 All SA 382 (A) (9 November 1990)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the agreement between Finat Properties and Murray & Roberts Construction Limited was not a contract for the sale of land but an innominate contract for the allocation and development of serviced erven. The court found that the essential terms, including the price to be determined jointly by Murray & Roberts and the Board, were sufficiently certain to render the contract enforceable. Outstanding matters such as marketing arrangements and design standards were left open for future negotiation but did not affect the binding nature of the agreement. The court emphasized that commercial agreements should not be lightly held ineffective due to vagueness,...

Citation
[1990] ZASCA 130
Parties
Appellant: Murray & Roberts Construction Limited; Respondent: Finat Properties (Proprietary) Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 November 1990
Case Number
167/89
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Dismissal of Exception
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Hoexter, E M Grosskopf, Nestadt, Kumleben, Nienaber
Legal Topics
Innominate Contract, Void for Vagueness, Exception Procedure, Alienation of Land Act, Contractual Intent
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Innominate Contract Void for Vagueness Exception Procedure Alienation of Land Act Contractual Intent

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Murray & Roberts Construction Limited

Appellant

Finat Properties (Proprietary) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Dismissal of Exception

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the agreement between the parties was void for vagueness due to lack of consensus on material terms.
  2. 2 Whether the agreement constituted a sale of land requiring compliance with the Alienation of Land Act.
  3. 3 Whether the pleaded contract was enforceable despite outstanding matters left for future negotiation.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the agreement between Finat Properties and Murray & Roberts Construction Limited was not a contract for the sale of land but an innominate contract for the allocation and development of serviced erven. The court found that the essential terms, including the price to be determined jointly by Murray & Roberts and the Board, were sufficiently certain to render the contract enforceable. Outstanding matters such as marketing arrangements and design standards were left open for future negotiation but did not affect the binding nature of the agreement. The court emphasized that commercial agreements should not be lightly held ineffective due to vagueness,...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, such costs to include the costs of two counsel.