Robor (Pty) Ltd v Razzmatazz Civil (Pty) Ltd (2922/2016) [2017] ZAFSHC 22 (2 March 2017)

Robor (Pty) Ltd v Razzmatazz Civil (Pty) Ltd (2922/2016) [2017] ZAFSHC 22 (2 March 2017)

The court found that annexure R-3 is a hybrid document, and its clause 14 relates only to the credit facility, not the sale agreement. The standard terms and conditions of sale in annexure R-3 expressly incorporate any written sale agreement, including annexure R-1, which was accepted by the defendant. The particulars of claim, together with the annexures, are lucid, logical, and intelligible, and the defendant is able to plead thereto. The defendant's complaints regarding vagueness and embarrassment do not amount to serious prejudice, and the defendant's arguments essentially challenge the validity of the contract, which is a matter for defence, not exception. The exception is therefore...

Citation
[2017] ZAFSHC 22
Parties
Plaintiff: Robor (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Razzmatazz Civil (Pty) Ltd
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 March 2017
Case Number
2922/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim (rule 23(1))
Outcome
Defendant's exception is dismissed with costs.
Judges
MENE, AJ
Legal Topics
Exception Procedure, Vague and Embarrassing Pleading, Contractual Terms Incorporation, Sale of Goods
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Exception Procedure Vague and Embarrassing Pleading Contractual Terms Incorporation Sale of Goods

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

Parties

Robor (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Razzmatazz Civil (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Exception to Particulars of Claim (rule 23(1))

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's particulars of claim are vague and embarrassing to the extent that the defendant cannot plead thereto.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff can rely on both the terms of annexure R1 (quotation) and R3 (credit application) in its claim.
  3. 3 Whether the timeline and documentation relating to the supply of goods and purchase orders are sufficiently clear.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that annexure R-3 is a hybrid document, and its clause 14 relates only to the credit facility, not the sale agreement. The standard terms and conditions of sale in annexure R-3 expressly incorporate any written sale agreement, including annexure R-1, which was accepted by the defendant. The particulars of claim, together with the annexures, are lucid, logical, and intelligible, and the defendant is able to plead thereto. The defendant's complaints regarding vagueness and embarrassment do not amount to serious prejudice, and the defendant's arguments essentially challenge the validity of the contract, which is a matter for defence, not exception. The exception is therefore...

Court Disposition

Defendant's exception is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The defendant’s exception is dismissed with costs.