Plit v Imperial Bank Ltd. (70/05) [2006] ZASCA 161; 2007 (1) SA 315 (SCA) (26 September 2006)

Plit v Imperial Bank Ltd. (70/05) [2006] ZASCA 161; 2007 (1) SA 315 (SCA) (26 September 2006)

On a proper interpretation of the instalment sale agreements, read against the commercial background and the specific clauses, the Supreme Court of Appeal held that the implied warranty against eviction was excluded. Clauses 2.1 and 2.2 were decisive: the purchaser selected the goods, and the Bank had no part in their selection or delivery. The agreements placed an obligation on the purchaser to ensure the Bank became owner, which is inconsistent with the Bank warranting undisturbed possession. The exclusion of the warranty was commercially sensible given the nature of the transaction and the parties' roles. The court rejected the appellant's arguments regarding misdirection and...

Citation
[2006] ZASCA 161
Parties
Appellant: Harold Plit; Respondent: Imperial Bank Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 September 2006
Case Number
70/05
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Witwatersrand Local Division on a Separated Issue Under Rule 33(4)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Farlam, Mthiyane, Mlambo, Combrinck, Cachalia
Legal Topics
Warranty Against Eviction, Instalment Sale Agreement, Contractual Exclusion of Implied Terms, Interpretation of Contracts
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Warranty Against Eviction Instalment Sale Agreement Contractual Exclusion of Implied Terms Interpretation of Contracts

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

Parties

Harold Plit

Appellant

Imperial Bank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Witwatersrand Local Division on a Separated Issue Under Rule 33(4)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the written instalment sale agreements between the parties were subject to the implied warranty that the defendant would enjoy full and undisturbed possession of the aircraft and engines.
  2. 2 Whether the terms of the agreements expressly or impliedly excluded the warranty against eviction.

Ratio Decidendi

On a proper interpretation of the instalment sale agreements, read against the commercial background and the specific clauses, the Supreme Court of Appeal held that the implied warranty against eviction was excluded. Clauses 2.1 and 2.2 were decisive: the purchaser selected the goods, and the Bank had no part in their selection or delivery. The agreements placed an obligation on the purchaser to ensure the Bank became owner, which is inconsistent with the Bank warranting undisturbed possession. The exclusion of the warranty was commercially sensible given the nature of the transaction and the parties' roles. The court rejected the appellant's arguments regarding misdirection and...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

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