Roux v Van der Merwe and Another (2239/2002) [2002] ZAFSHC 16 (17 October 2002)

Roux v Van der Merwe and Another (2239/2002) [2002] ZAFSHC 16 (17 October 2002)

The court found that the contract required payment on the first day of each month, and there was no evidence of an agreement or intention that payment could be made on the next business day if the due date fell on a public holiday. The applicant had previously made payments personally to the respondent, and there was no indication that payment on 1 May 2002 was impossible or impractical. The contract did not specify payment at a place of business that would be closed on holidays, and the respondent's address was available for payment. The applicant's failure to pay on the stipulated date constituted a breach, and the respondent was entitled to cancel the contract in terms of clause 11(a)....

Citation
[2002] ZAFSHC 16
Parties
Applicant: Abraham Daniël Roux; Respondent: Martha Maria van der Merwe; Respondent: Pieter Willem Grobbelaar
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 October 2002
Case Number
2239/2002
Procedural Posture
Declaratory Application / First Instance
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Van Coller, R
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Contract Cancellation, Late Payment, Declaratory Relief
Land and Property Civil Procedure Specific Performance Contract Cancellation Late Payment Declaratory Relief

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

Abraham Daniël Roux

Applicant

Martha Maria van der Merwe

Respondent

Pieter Willem Grobbelaar

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Declaratory Application / First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's late payment due to a public holiday constituted a breach of contract.
  2. 2 Whether the cancellation of the sale agreement by the first respondent was legally valid.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was entitled to tender payment on the next business day after the due date.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the contract required payment on the first day of each month, and there was no evidence of an agreement or intention that payment could be made on the next business day if the due date fell on a public holiday. The applicant had previously made payments personally to the respondent, and there was no indication that payment on 1 May 2002 was impossible or impractical. The contract did not specify payment at a place of business that would be closed on holidays, and the respondent's address was available for payment. The applicant's failure to pay on the stipulated date constituted a breach, and the respondent was entitled to cancel the contract in terms of clause 11(a)....

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.