Nach Investments (Pty) Ltd v Knight Frank South Africa (Pty) Ltd (54/99) [2001] ZASCA 13; [2001] 3 All SA 295 (A) (16 March 2001)

Nach Investments (Pty) Ltd v Knight Frank South Africa (Pty) Ltd (54/99) [2001] ZASCA 13; [2001] 3 All SA 295 (A) (16 March 2001)

The court held that the respondent was entitled to commission because its actions were the effective cause of the sale. The contract did not require that the purchaser be introduced by the agent, only that the agent bring about a sale. The respondent produced an offer from a third party, which triggered the tenant's right of pre-emption and led directly to the sale. The respondent's conduct was both the causa sine qua non and the causa causans of the sale. Therefore, the respondent was entitled to commission under the contract.

Citation
[2001] ZASCA 13
Parties
Appellant: Nach Investments (Proprietary) Limited; Respondent: Knight Frank South Africa (Pty) Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 March 2001
Case Number
54/99
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Witwatersrand Local Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Scott, Cameron, Nugent
Legal Topics
Estate Agent Commission, Effective Cause of Sale, Contractual Terms, Right of Pre Emption
Commercial and Corporate Estate Agent Commission Effective Cause of Sale Contractual Terms Right of Pre Emption

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nach Investments (Proprietary) Limited

Appellant

Knight Frank South Africa (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Witwatersrand Local Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the estate agent was the effective cause of the sale and thus entitled to commission.
  2. 2 Whether the agent must have introduced the purchaser to be entitled to commission under the contract.
  3. 3 Whether the production of an offer from a third party triggers the right of pre-emption and commission entitlement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the respondent was entitled to commission because its actions were the effective cause of the sale. The contract did not require that the purchaser be introduced by the agent, only that the agent bring about a sale. The respondent produced an offer from a third party, which triggered the tenant's right of pre-emption and led directly to the sale. The respondent's conduct was both the causa sine qua non and the causa causans of the sale. Therefore, the respondent was entitled to commission under the contract.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.