Steinberg v Lazard [2005] ZAGPHC 363; 20/03/01 (18 February 2005)

Steinberg v Lazard [2005] ZAGPHC 363; 20/03/01 (18 February 2005)

The court found that the penalty clause in the agreement was mutual, reciprocal, and professionally drafted, reflecting the parties' considered intentions. The Conventional Penalties Act allows for enforcement of such clauses unless the debtor proves the penalty is disproportionate to the prejudice suffered. The defendant failed to discharge the burden of showing that the penalty was out of proportion to the prejudice suffered by the plaintiff. The law does not require the plaintiff to prove actual pecuniary loss, as prejudice under section 3 of the Act includes broader interests. Accordingly, the penalty is due and payable in full, and the defendant is ordered to pay the stipulated...

Citation
[2005] ZAGPHC 363
Parties
Plaintiff: Collin Steinberg; Defendant: Terance Lazard
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 February 2005
Case Number
8520/03
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff: the defendant is ordered to pay the full penalty amount plus interest as stipulated.
Judges
Willis
Legal Topics
Conventional Penalties Act, Contractual Penalty Clause, Pacta Sunt Servanda, Proportionality of Penalty
Commercial and Corporate Conventional Penalties Act Contractual Penalty Clause Pacta Sunt Servanda Proportionality of Penalty

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Collin Steinberg

Plaintiff

Terance Lazard

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the penalty stipulated in clause 9.1 of the agreement is due and payable.
  2. 2 If the penalty is payable, whether it should be reduced as being out of proportion to the prejudice suffered by the plaintiff.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff must prove pecuniary or patrimonial loss to enforce the penalty clause.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the penalty clause in the agreement was mutual, reciprocal, and professionally drafted, reflecting the parties' considered intentions. The Conventional Penalties Act allows for enforcement of such clauses unless the debtor proves the penalty is disproportionate to the prejudice suffered. The defendant failed to discharge the burden of showing that the penalty was out of proportion to the prejudice suffered by the plaintiff. The law does not require the plaintiff to prove actual pecuniary loss, as prejudice under section 3 of the Act includes broader interests. Accordingly, the penalty is due and payable in full, and the defendant is ordered to pay the stipulated...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff: the defendant is ordered to pay the full penalty amount plus interest as stipulated.

Orders

  • The defendant is to pay the plaintiff the sum of R1 075 000.
  • Interest at the rate of 15.5 percent per annum on R350 000 from 1 May 2003 to date of payment.