Scheibert v Allen (694/2015) [2016] ZASCA 126 (26 September 2016)

Scheibert v Allen (694/2015) [2016] ZASCA 126 (26 September 2016)

The respondent failed to prove that the breach of warranty resulted in any diminution in the value of the property. The evidence established that the purchase price paid was below the market value, even after removal of the kitchen. The respondent's expert evidence was flawed and did not demonstrate that the property lost value due to the breach. The appellant's expert showed that the market value exceeded the purchase price. As the respondent did not suffer patrimonial loss, her claim for damages fails. The appeal is upheld and the respondent's claim is dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2016] ZASCA 126
Parties
Appellant: Hans Pieter Wolfgang Scheibert; Respondent: Lynette Ethel Allen
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 September 2016
Case Number
694/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape Division of the High Court, Cape Town
Outcome
Appeal upheld; respondent's claim dismissed with costs.
Judges
Lewis, Shongwe, Willis, Saldulker, Dambuza
Legal Topics
Breach of Warranty, Diminution in Value, Assessment of Contractual Damages, Market Value Measure
Commercial and Corporate Land and Property Breach of Warranty Diminution in Value Assessment of Contractual Damages Market Value Measure

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 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hans Pieter Wolfgang Scheibert

Appellant

Lynette Ethel Allen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape Division of the High Court, Cape Town

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the breach of warranty regarding municipal approval of alterations resulted in a diminution in the value of the property.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent proved damages arising from the breach of warranty.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent was obliged to mitigate her damages.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent failed to prove that the breach of warranty resulted in any diminution in the value of the property. The evidence established that the purchase price paid was below the market value, even after removal of the kitchen. The respondent's expert evidence was flawed and did not demonstrate that the property lost value due to the breach. The appellant's expert showed that the market value exceeded the purchase price. As the respondent did not suffer patrimonial loss, her claim for damages fails. The appeal is upheld and the respondent's claim is dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; respondent's claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs, including costs of two counsel.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted with: 'The plaintiff’s claim is dismissed with costs.'