Stac Plastic Machinery Agency (Pty) Ltd v Swan Plastic CC (5117/2007) [2011] ZAKZDHC 78 (4 November 2011)

Stac Plastic Machinery Agency (Pty) Ltd v Swan Plastic CC (5117/2007) [2011] ZAKZDHC 78 (4 November 2011)

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove it was the seller of the second belling machine. The evidence showed that the defendant regarded Zhoushan as the seller and did not contract with the plaintiff as seller. The plaintiff's role was that of an agent and not a contracting party. Furthermore, the purchase price was only payable upon satisfactory installation, which did not occur. Regarding the commission claim, the court held that there was no binding agreement on the amount of commission, as the parties had agreed to negotiate a more acceptable rate later, which never happened. Consequently, the plaintiff could not enforce either claim.

Citation
[2011] ZAKZDHC 78
Parties
Plaintiff: Stac Plastic Machinery Agency (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Swan Plastic CC
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 November 2011
Case Number
5117/2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Both claims by the plaintiff are dismissed with costs.
Judges
Ploos van Amstel
Legal Topics
Sale of Goods, Commission Agreements, Agency Relationship, Breach of Contract
Commercial and Corporate Sale of Goods Commission Agreements Agency Relationship Breach of Contract

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stac Plastic Machinery Agency (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Swan Plastic CC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was the seller of the second belling machine and entitled to claim the purchase price.
  2. 2 Whether there was a binding agreement for the payment of commission to the plaintiff for the consignment of raw material.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove it was the seller of the second belling machine. The evidence showed that the defendant regarded Zhoushan as the seller and did not contract with the plaintiff as seller. The plaintiff's role was that of an agent and not a contracting party. Furthermore, the purchase price was only payable upon satisfactory installation, which did not occur. Regarding the commission claim, the court held that there was no binding agreement on the amount of commission, as the parties had agreed to negotiate a more acceptable rate later, which never happened. Consequently, the plaintiff could not enforce either claim.

Court Disposition

Both claims by the plaintiff are dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's claim for the purchase price of the belling machine is dismissed with costs.
  • The plaintiff's claim for commission on the consignment of raw material is dismissed with costs.