Tread Research CC v Bridoon Trade and Invest 197 (Pty) Ltd t/a Nashua Cape Town (10195/2017) [2021] ZAWCHC 268; [2022] 1 All SA 865 (WCC) (8 December 2021)

Tread Research CC v Bridoon Trade and Invest 197 (Pty) Ltd t/a Nashua Cape Town (10195/2017) [2021] ZAWCHC 268; [2022] 1 All SA 865 (WCC) (8 December 2021)

The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that Ms Flandorp did not have actual or ostensible authority to bind the plaintiff to the 2016 agreement. The documentary evidence and credible testimony established that only Professor Burgess was authorised to conclude such contracts. The defendant's reliance on the invalid 2016 agreement to terminate the ECN agreement and disrupt telephonic services was unlawful. The defendant's conduct caused pure economic loss to the plaintiff, who had no adequate contractual remedy against the defendant, as the defendant was not a party to the ECN agreement and could not reinstate it. The court rejected the defendant's argument that a delictual claim...

Citation
[2021] ZAWCHC 268
Parties
Plaintiff: Tread Research CC; Defendant: Bridoon Trade and Invest 197 (Pty) Ltd t/a Nashua Cape Town
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 December 2021
Case Number
10195/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Trial; Quantum Postponed
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim for damages succeeds; quantum postponed. Plaintiff's claim for restitution of R81,567.00 succeeds. Defendant to pay plaintiff's costs.
Judges
Davis
Legal Topics
Authority of Company Representatives, Unlawful Interference With Contract, Pure Economic Loss, Ostensible Authority, Unjustified Enrichment
Commercial and Corporate Delict Authority of Company Representatives Unlawful Interference With Contract Pure Economic Loss Ostensible Authority Unjustified Enrichment

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tread Research CC

Plaintiff

Bridoon Trade and Invest 197 (Pty) Ltd t/a Nashua Cape Town

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Trial; Quantum Postponed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did Ms Flandorp have actual or ostensible authority to bind the plaintiff to the 2016 agreement with the defendant?
  2. 2 Was the 2016 agreement validly concluded and binding on the plaintiff?
  3. 3 Did the defendant unlawfully interfere with the plaintiff's contractual rights under the ECN agreement?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that Ms Flandorp did not have actual or ostensible authority to bind the plaintiff to the 2016 agreement. The documentary evidence and credible testimony established that only Professor Burgess was authorised to conclude such contracts. The defendant's reliance on the invalid 2016 agreement to terminate the ECN agreement and disrupt telephonic services was unlawful. The defendant's conduct caused pure economic loss to the plaintiff, who had no adequate contractual remedy against the defendant, as the defendant was not a party to the ECN agreement and could not reinstate it. The court rejected the defendant's argument that a delictual claim...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim for damages succeeds; quantum postponed. Plaintiff's claim for restitution of R81,567.00 succeeds. Defendant to pay plaintiff's costs.

Orders

  • Defendant is liable to plaintiff for such damages as it may prove occasioned by disruptions of telephonic services during 15 September 2016 and 1 December 2016; quantum to be determined in later proceedings.
  • Defendant is to pay the sum of R81,567.00 to plaintiff.