Sentrachem Bpk. v Steenkamp (503/93) [1995] ZASCA 69 (30 May 1995)

Sentrachem Bpk. v Steenkamp (503/93) [1995] ZASCA 69 (30 May 1995)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent failed to prove that the alleged Mulligan undertaking was an express or tacit term of the contract for the sale of the herbicide. The evidence did not support the existence of such an undertaking, either expressly or by necessary implication. The contract was essentially for the sale of Granstar, and the circumstances did not justify importing a term making the appellant responsible for the aerial application. The respondent bore the burden of proof and did not discharge it. Consequently, the appellant was not contractually liable for the damage to the respondent's wheat crop resulting from the aerial application.

Citation
[1995] ZASCA 69
Parties
Appellant: Sentrachem Beperk; Respondent: Johannes Lodewyk Steenkamp
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 May 1995
Case Number
503/93
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Transvaal Provincial Division
Outcome
Appeal upheld; absolution from the instance granted with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Smalberger, F H Grosskopf, Marais
Legal Topics
Contract Breach, Implied Terms, Sale of Goods, Burden of Proof
Commercial and Corporate Contract Breach Implied Terms Sale of Goods Burden of Proof

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sentrachem Beperk

Appellant

Johannes Lodewyk Steenkamp

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Transvaal Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the alleged Mulligan undertaking formed an express or tacit term of the contract between the parties.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was contractually liable for the proper aerial application of the herbicide.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent proved breach of contract by the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent failed to prove that the alleged Mulligan undertaking was an express or tacit term of the contract for the sale of the herbicide. The evidence did not support the existence of such an undertaking, either expressly or by necessary implication. The contract was essentially for the sale of Granstar, and the circumstances did not justify importing a term making the appellant responsible for the aerial application. The respondent bore the burden of proof and did not discharge it. Consequently, the appellant was not contractually liable for the damage to the respondent's wheat crop resulting from the aerial application.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; absolution from the instance granted with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with: 'Absolution from the instance with costs, including the costs of two counsel.'