Oertel v Lambons (Edms) Bpk (A30/2007) [2007] ZAFSHC 129 (22 November 2007)

Oertel v Lambons (Edms) Bpk (A30/2007) [2007] ZAFSHC 129 (22 November 2007)

The court found that the appellant was never informed by the respondent that the installation of the turbocharger by Alpine Developments rendered the manufacturer's warranty on the engine void from the outset. The respondent's representatives created the impression that the vehicle was covered by a three-year or 100,000km warranty from Samcor. The court held that the appellant was entitled to rely on these representations and raise misrepresentation as a defence. Since the Samcor warranty was void ab initio, the appellant was under no obligation to service the vehicle at an authorised Ford dealer. The respondent could not rely on non-compliance with the warranty terms to defeat the...

Citation
[2007] ZAFSHC 129
Parties
Appellant: H J Oertel; Respondent: Lambons (Edms) Bpk
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 November 2007
Case Number
A30/2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of Court a Quo
Outcome
Appeal upheld with costs; order of the court a quo set aside and replaced with dismissal of the respondent's claim with costs.
Judges
A.P. Beckley, J.P. Malherbe
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Contractual Warranty, Sale of Goods, Remedies for Breach
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Misrepresentation Contractual Warranty Sale of Goods Remedies for Breach

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H J Oertel

Appellant

Lambons (Edms) Bpk

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of Court a Quo

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was misled regarding the existence and scope of the manufacturer's warranty on the purchased vehicle.
  2. 2 Whether the installation of a turbocharger by a third party rendered the manufacturer's warranty void ab initio.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's representations regarding the warranty constituted actionable misrepresentation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant was never informed by the respondent that the installation of the turbocharger by Alpine Developments rendered the manufacturer's warranty on the engine void from the outset. The respondent's representatives created the impression that the vehicle was covered by a three-year or 100,000km warranty from Samcor. The court held that the appellant was entitled to rely on these representations and raise misrepresentation as a defence. Since the Samcor warranty was void ab initio, the appellant was under no obligation to service the vehicle at an authorised Ford dealer. The respondent could not rely on non-compliance with the warranty terms to defeat the...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld with costs; order of the court a quo set aside and replaced with dismissal of the respondent's claim with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds with costs.
  • The appellant is entitled to only 60% of the costs of preparation of the record for the appeal.