Propermark (Edms) Bpk v Galama (08/03) [2004] ZANCHC 52 (5 March 2004)

Propermark (Edms) Bpk v Galama (08/03) [2004] ZANCHC 52 (5 March 2004)

The court held that the tender made by the defendant in paragraph 5.5 of the plea was a common law tender, which remained open for acceptance until withdrawn. The plaintiff was legally entitled to accept the tender at any time before withdrawal, even after previously rejecting it. The acceptance of the tender by the plaintiff during the Rule 37 pre-trial conference brought the dispute between the parties to an end, entitling the plaintiff to specific performance under the contract. The defendant was bound by the tender and required to deliver 1000 metric tons of YM1-grade yellow maize to the plaintiff at the agreed price. The court rejected the defendant's argument that the plaintiff...

Citation
[2004] ZANCHC 52
Parties
Plaintiff: Propermark (Edms) Bpk; Defendant: HJ Galama
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 March 2004
Case Number
08/03
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Preliminary Issue and Final Orders
Outcome
Plaintiff's acceptance of the defendant's tender is upheld; specific performance ordered; costs apportioned as per the parties' agreement.
Judges
Majiedt R
Legal Topics
Contract Breach, Tender Acceptance, Specific Performance, Costs Order
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Contract Breach Tender Acceptance Specific Performance Costs Order

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Propermark (Edms) Bpk

Plaintiff

HJ Galama

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Preliminary Issue and Final Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was legally entitled to accept the tender contained in paragraph 5.5 of the defendant's plea.
  2. 2 Whether the tender remained open for acceptance despite previous rejection by the plaintiff.
  3. 3 Whether acceptance of the tender brought the dispute between the parties to an end.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the tender made by the defendant in paragraph 5.5 of the plea was a common law tender, which remained open for acceptance until withdrawn. The plaintiff was legally entitled to accept the tender at any time before withdrawal, even after previously rejecting it. The acceptance of the tender by the plaintiff during the Rule 37 pre-trial conference brought the dispute between the parties to an end, entitling the plaintiff to specific performance under the contract. The defendant was bound by the tender and required to deliver 1000 metric tons of YM1-grade yellow maize to the plaintiff at the agreed price. The court rejected the defendant's argument that the plaintiff...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's acceptance of the defendant's tender is upheld; specific performance ordered; costs apportioned as per the parties' agreement.

Orders

  • The defendant is ordered to deliver 1000 metric tons of YM1-grade yellow maize to the plaintiff at Rostrevor, Modderrivier, at the price of R1114.00 per metric ton.
  • The plaintiff is ordered to pay the amount of R1114.00 per metric ton to the defendant within 7 days of delivery of the maize.