Stoltz v Steenkamp (127/17) [2018] ZASCA 84 (31 May 2018)

Stoltz v Steenkamp (127/17) [2018] ZASCA 84 (31 May 2018)

The trial court's factual findings were justified by the evidence. The probabilities, including the market value of the harvester, the contents of the contemporaneous document, and the parties' own admissions, supported the respondent's version that the purchase price was the outstanding balance owed to Absa Bank. The appellant failed to prove that the purchase price was R750,000. The appeal was dismissed as there was no basis to interfere with the trial court's findings.

Citation
[2018] ZASCA 84
Parties
Appellant: Jan George Gabriel Stoltz; Respondent: Prof L J S Steenkamp
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 May 2018
Case Number
127/17
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division, Pretoria After Remittal and Further Evidence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Shongwe, Majiedt, Saldulker, Rogers, Schippers
Legal Topics
Purchase and Sale, Oral Contract, Proof of Purchase Price, Mutually Destructive Versions
Commercial and Corporate Purchase and Sale Oral Contract Proof of Purchase Price Mutually Destructive Versions

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 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jan George Gabriel Stoltz

Appellant

Prof L J S Steenkamp

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division, Pretoria After Remittal and Further Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the purchase price of the harvester was R750,000 or the outstanding balance owed to Absa Bank.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant proved the purchase price on a balance of probabilities.

Ratio Decidendi

The trial court's factual findings were justified by the evidence. The probabilities, including the market value of the harvester, the contents of the contemporaneous document, and the parties' own admissions, supported the respondent's version that the purchase price was the outstanding balance owed to Absa Bank. The appellant failed to prove that the purchase price was R750,000. The appeal was dismissed as there was no basis to interfere with the trial court's findings.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.