Thompson v South African Broadcasting Corporation (622/98) [2000] ZASCA 76; 2001 (3) SA 746 (SCA) ; [2001] 1 All SA 329 (A) (29 November 2000)

Thompson v South African Broadcasting Corporation (622/98) [2000] ZASCA 76; 2001 (3) SA 746 (SCA) ; [2001] 1 All SA 329 (A) (29 November 2000)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent failed to prove that the appellant's fraudulent misrepresentation was the cause of its alleged loss. The evidence showed that the respondent did not rely on the identity of the company but rather on the appellant as the true contracting party. The respondent would have contracted regardless of the company name, and there was no causal link between the misrepresentation and the payment made. Furthermore, the respondent failed to prove that it suffered damage in the amount claimed, as it received proper performance under the production agreement. Awarding damages would have unjustly allowed the respondent to retain the television...

Citation
[2000] ZASCA 76
Parties
Appellant: Desmond James Thompson; Respondent: South African Broadcasting Corporation
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 November 2000
Case Number
622/98
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Cape of Good Hope Provincial Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed; absolution from the instance granted; no order as to costs in the court a quo.
Judges
F H Grosskopf, Harms, Olivier, Zulman, Mthiyane
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Causation in Delict, Assessment of Damage
Delict Fraudulent Misrepresentation Causation in Delict Assessment of Damage

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

Parties

Desmond James Thompson

Appellant

South African Broadcasting Corporation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Cape of Good Hope Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's fraudulent misrepresentation caused the respondent's alleged patrimonial loss.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent suffered damage as a result of the misrepresentation.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent proved the quantum of damages claimed.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent failed to prove that the appellant's fraudulent misrepresentation was the cause of its alleged loss. The evidence showed that the respondent did not rely on the identity of the company but rather on the appellant as the true contracting party. The respondent would have contracted regardless of the company name, and there was no causal link between the misrepresentation and the payment made. Furthermore, the respondent failed to prove that it suffered damage in the amount claimed, as it received proper performance under the production agreement. Awarding damages would have unjustly allowed the respondent to retain the television...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; absolution from the instance granted; no order as to costs in the court a quo.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed with costs.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with: 'Absolution from the instance is granted, but no order is made as to costs.'