Smith v Van den Heever NO and Others (136/2010) [2011] ZASCA 5; 2011 (3) SA 140 (SCA) (4 March 2011)

Smith v Van den Heever NO and Others (136/2010) [2011] ZASCA 5; 2011 (3) SA 140 (SCA) (4 March 2011)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the company had not performed its obligations under the contract during the relevant cycles, specifically failing to supply feed and abandoning the chickens. As a result, the exceptio non adimpleti contractus applied, and Mr Smith was not liable for payment of the claimed amount. The auditor's certificate did not comply with the contract's requirements and could not be relied upon. Regarding the counterclaim, although breaches were established, Mr Smith did not suffer any recoverable loss, as his income from the sale of abandoned broilers exceeded the projected loss. Therefore, both the claim and counterclaim should have been dismissed, and the...

Citation
[2011] ZASCA 5
Parties
Appellant: F J Smith; Respondent: T W Van den Heever NO; Respondent: E M Motala NO; Respondent: J D Pema NO
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 March 2011
Case Number
136/2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Full Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal upheld; both claim and counterclaim dismissed with costs.
Judges
Harms, Nugent, Bosielo
Legal Topics
Exceptio Non Adimpleti Contractus, Breach of Contract, Calculation of Damages, Counterclaim, Liquidation, Contract Cycles
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Exceptio Non Adimpleti Contractus Breach of Contract Calculation of Damages Counterclaim Liquidation Contract Cycles

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 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

F J Smith

Appellant

T W Van den Heever NO

Respondent

E M Motala NO

Respondent

J D Pema NO

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Full Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the company performed its obligations under the contract, entitling it to claim payment from Mr Smith.
  2. 2 Whether Mr Smith was entitled to rely on the exceptio non adimpleti contractus as a defence to the claim.
  3. 3 Whether Mr Smith suffered recoverable losses due to breaches of contract by the company.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the company had not performed its obligations under the contract during the relevant cycles, specifically failing to supply feed and abandoning the chickens. As a result, the exceptio non adimpleti contractus applied, and Mr Smith was not liable for payment of the claimed amount. The auditor's certificate did not comply with the contract's requirements and could not be relied upon. Regarding the counterclaim, although breaches were established, Mr Smith did not suffer any recoverable loss, as his income from the sale of abandoned broilers exceeded the projected loss. Therefore, both the claim and counterclaim should have been dismissed, and the...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; both claim and counterclaim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The order of the full court is set aside and replaced with an order dismissing both claim and counterclaim with costs.