Taylor v Devine (122/82/AV) [1984] ZASCA 7 (2 March 1984)

Taylor v Devine (122/82/AV) [1984] ZASCA 7 (2 March 1984)

The court found Taylor's version of events improbable and contradictory, particularly regarding the alleged conditions attached to the cheque and the reasons for its issuance. The evidence showed that the cheque was given in exchange for three post-dated cheques, and Taylor failed to discharge the onus of proving that the cheque was subject to conditions or that he did not receive value. The respondent, Devine, was entitled to enforce payment as the legal holder. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[1984] ZASCA 7
Parties
Appellant: J D Taylor; Respondent: D J Devine
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 March 1984
Case Number
122/82/AV
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrates' Court and Natal Provincial Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Miller, Cillié, Nicholas
Legal Topics
Negotiable Instruments, Holder in Due Course, Onus of Proof
Commercial and Corporate Negotiable Instruments Holder in Due Course Onus of Proof

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J D Taylor

Appellant

D J Devine

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrates' Court and Natal Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the cheque for R3 000,00 was issued subject to conditions that precluded liability.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was a holder in due course entitled to enforce payment.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant received value for the cheque.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found Taylor's version of events improbable and contradictory, particularly regarding the alleged conditions attached to the cheque and the reasons for its issuance. The evidence showed that the cheque was given in exchange for three post-dated cheques, and Taylor failed to discharge the onus of proving that the cheque was subject to conditions or that he did not receive value. The respondent, Devine, was entitled to enforce payment as the legal holder. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.