Singh v McCarthy Retail Ltd (t/a McIntosh Motors) (429/98) [2000] ZASCA 41; 2000 (4) SA 795 (SCA); [2000] 4 All SA 487 (A) (14 September 2000)

Singh v McCarthy Retail Ltd (t/a McIntosh Motors) (429/98) [2000] ZASCA 41; 2000 (4) SA 795 (SCA); [2000] 4 All SA 487 (A) (14 September 2000)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that, even assuming the contract should be rectified to include the term requiring transportation by road carrier, the respondent's breach in driving the vehicle from King Williams Town to Durban did not justify rescission. The breach was not sufficiently material, as the appellant's real complaint was not about the vehicle being driven, but about not driving it himself. There was no substantial damage to the vehicle, and the breach did not go to the root of the contract. Furthermore, there was no evidence of a tacit lex commissoria entitling the appellant to cancel for breach. The contract contained no provision for cancellation under these circumstances,...

Citation
[2000] ZASCA 41
Parties
Appellant: Niemesh Singh; Respondent: McCarthy Retail Ltd (t/a McIntosh Motors)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 September 2000
Case Number
429/98
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Court a Quo
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Olivier, Scott, Mthiyane
Legal Topics
Contract Rectification, Material Breach, Rescission, Lex Commissoria, Sale of Goods
Commercial and Corporate Contract Rectification Material Breach Rescission Lex Commissoria 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Niemesh Singh

Appellant

McCarthy Retail Ltd (t/a McIntosh Motors)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Court a Quo

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was entitled to rescind the contract due to the respondent's breach.
  2. 2 Whether the contract should be rectified to include the alleged term regarding transportation of the vehicle.
  3. 3 Whether a tacit lex commissoria existed entitling the appellant to cancel for breach.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that, even assuming the contract should be rectified to include the term requiring transportation by road carrier, the respondent's breach in driving the vehicle from King Williams Town to Durban did not justify rescission. The breach was not sufficiently material, as the appellant's real complaint was not about the vehicle being driven, but about not driving it himself. There was no substantial damage to the vehicle, and the breach did not go to the root of the contract. Furthermore, there was no evidence of a tacit lex commissoria entitling the appellant to cancel for breach. The contract contained no provision for cancellation under these circumstances,...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.