Rosebank Parkade (Pty) Ltd. v Cape Pacific Ltd. (43/89) [1989] ZASCA 43 (31 March 1989)

Rosebank Parkade (Pty) Ltd. v Cape Pacific Ltd. (43/89) [1989] ZASCA 43 (31 March 1989)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that, on the evidence and probabilities, a binding oral agreement for the sale of the shares, loan account, and furniture was concluded between the parties on 22 or 23 February 1979. The agreement was varied on 24 February 1979 regarding the manner of payment, but the variation was void due to contravention of exchange control regulations. The original agreement, however, remained valid and enforceable. Swersky was found to have had authority to contract on behalf of the appellant, either expressly or by conduct. Cape Pacific Ltd was validly nominated as purchaser, with the nomination becoming effective upon ratification in May 1980. The appellant's...

Citation
[1989] ZASCA 43
Parties
Appellant: Rosebank Parkade (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Cape Pacific Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 March 1989
Case Number
43/89
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of the Cape of Good Hope Provincial Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Corbett, Nestadt, Milne, Kumleben, Nicholas
Legal Topics
Oral Contract, Specific Performance, Agency Authority, Exchange Control Regulations, Nomination of Purchaser
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Oral Contract Specific Performance Agency Authority Exchange Control Regulations Nomination of Purchaser

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rosebank Parkade (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Cape Pacific Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of the Cape of Good Hope Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was an oral agreement for the sale of shares, loan account, and furniture in Findon Investments (Pty) Ltd concluded between the parties on 22 or 23 February 1979?
  2. 2 Was the agreement varied on 24 February 1979 regarding the manner of payment?
  3. 3 Did Swersky have authority to conclude the agreement on behalf of the appellant?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that, on the evidence and probabilities, a binding oral agreement for the sale of the shares, loan account, and furniture was concluded between the parties on 22 or 23 February 1979. The agreement was varied on 24 February 1979 regarding the manner of payment, but the variation was void due to contravention of exchange control regulations. The original agreement, however, remained valid and enforceable. Swersky was found to have had authority to contract on behalf of the appellant, either expressly or by conduct. Cape Pacific Ltd was validly nominated as purchaser, with the nomination becoming effective upon ratification in May 1980. The appellant's...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.