Bridgestone SA (Pty) Ltd v SA Truck Bodies (Pty) Ltd (842/2008) [2011] ZAFSHC 119 (28 July 2011)

Bridgestone SA (Pty) Ltd v SA Truck Bodies (Pty) Ltd (842/2008) [2011] ZAFSHC 119 (28 July 2011)

The court found that the evidence did not support the Plaintiff's contention that the payment of the 70 rands per tyre was subject to a suspensive or resolutive condition. Both parties agreed that Maxiprest was given an opportunity to make a presentation, which was either not made or declined, and no agreement materialised. The Defendant performed the services itself and was entitled to the additional rebate as per the agreement. The Plaintiff failed to plead or raise the alleged condition, and the evidence of both witnesses was credible and consistent. The question posed in the Rule 37 conference was answered in the affirmative: the Defendant is entitled to the additional rebate.

Citation
[2011] ZAFSHC 119
Parties
Plaintiff: Bridgestone S.A (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: S.A Truck Bodies (Pty) Ltd
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 July 2011
Case Number
842/2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Determination of Entitlement to Additional Rebate
Outcome
Defendant entitled to additional rebate; matter postponed for determination of quantum of counterclaim.
Judges
G Khan
Legal Topics
Contractual Rebate, Goods Sold and Delivered, Fitment and Alignment Services, Conditional Agreement, Quantum of Counterclaim
Commercial and Corporate Contractual Rebate Goods Sold and Delivered Fitment and Alignment Services Conditional Agreement Quantum of Counterclaim

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bridgestone S.A (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

S.A Truck Bodies (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Separated From Quantum; Determination of Entitlement to Additional Rebate

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant is entitled to an additional rebate of 70 rands per tyre in addition to the 200 rands discount per tyre.
  2. 2 Whether the payment of the 70 rands per tyre was subject to a suspensive or resolutive condition.
  3. 3 Whether Maxiprest was afforded an opportunity to make a presentation and whether any agreement materialised between Maxiprest and the Defendant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the evidence did not support the Plaintiff's contention that the payment of the 70 rands per tyre was subject to a suspensive or resolutive condition. Both parties agreed that Maxiprest was given an opportunity to make a presentation, which was either not made or declined, and no agreement materialised. The Defendant performed the services itself and was entitled to the additional rebate as per the agreement. The Plaintiff failed to plead or raise the alleged condition, and the evidence of both witnesses was credible and consistent. The question posed in the Rule 37 conference was answered in the affirmative: the Defendant is entitled to the additional rebate.

Court Disposition

Defendant entitled to additional rebate; matter postponed for determination of quantum of counterclaim.

Orders

  • In addition to the 200.00 rand per tyre rebate, the Defendant is entitled to a further rebate of 70.00 rands for each tyre purchased by it from the Plaintiff from the inception of the agreement to the termination thereof.
  • The matter is postponed sine die for the determination of the quantum of Defendant's counterclaim.