Piet Warren Plase (Pty) Ltd v Greenchem (Pty) Ltd (80950/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 816 (1 December 2015)

Piet Warren Plase (Pty) Ltd v Greenchem (Pty) Ltd (80950/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 816 (1 December 2015)

The court found that the respondent had signed a written contract requiring payment of the purchase price on the date of sale and that no written confirmation of any oral agreement postponing payment existed. The respondent's version of a postponed payment was rejected as improbable and unsupported by evidence. The applicant validly cancelled the contract after the respondent failed to pay, and was entitled to restitution, including the return of the sable bull Zulu. The respondent's counterclaim was unliquidated and could not be set off against the purchase price. The court granted the applicant's prayers for re-delivery of Zulu and costs, including those for two counsel.

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 816
Parties
Applicant: Piet Warren Plase (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Greenchem (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 December 2015
Case Number
80950/2015
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application granted. The respondent is ordered to return the sable bull Zulu to the applicant and pay costs, including those for two counsel.
Judges
Msimeki
Legal Topics
Contract of Sale, Repudiation, Restitution, Auction Rules
Commercial and Corporate Contract of Sale Repudiation Restitution Auction Rules

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Piet Warren Plase (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Greenchem (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the parties agreed that the purchase price for Zulu was payable on or before 27 August 2016 as contended by the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant validly cancelled the sale agreement due to non-payment.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent is obliged to return the sable bull Zulu to the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent had signed a written contract requiring payment of the purchase price on the date of sale and that no written confirmation of any oral agreement postponing payment existed. The respondent's version of a postponed payment was rejected as improbable and unsupported by evidence. The applicant validly cancelled the contract after the respondent failed to pay, and was entitled to restitution, including the return of the sable bull Zulu. The respondent's counterclaim was unliquidated and could not be set off against the purchase price. The court granted the applicant's prayers for re-delivery of Zulu and costs, including those for two counsel.

Court Disposition

Application granted. The respondent is ordered to return the sable bull Zulu to the applicant and pay costs, including those for two counsel.

Orders

  • An order is granted in terms of prayers 1, 2 and 3 of the notice of motion dated 7 October 2015.
  • The costs include those costs consequent upon the employment of two counsel.