Van der Meulen and Another v Joubert and Another (2777/2016) [2018] ZAFSHC 158 (18 October 2018)

Van der Meulen and Another v Joubert and Another (2777/2016) [2018] ZAFSHC 158 (18 October 2018)

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove the existence of an oral agreement of sale between themselves and the second defendant. The evidence established that the second defendant acted only as an agent for the plaintiffs, facilitating the purchase of cattle from a third party. The plaintiffs’ reliance on a warranty against eviction was misplaced, as such a warranty presupposes a valid sale agreement, which was not proven. The tax invoice issued by the second defendant was for VAT purposes and did not constitute proof of a sale agreement. The plaintiffs did not communicate directly with the defendants regarding the sale, and their representative confirmed under...

Citation
[2018] ZAFSHC 158
Parties
Plaintiff: Nicolaas Johannes Petrus Van der Meulen; Plaintiff: Carolina Johanna Van der Meulen; Respondent: Pieter Joubert; Respondent: Platberg Lewende Hawe BK
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 October 2018
Case Number
2777/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claims dismissed with costs.
Judges
Mhlambi
Legal Topics
Agency Relationship, Oral Contract, Warranty Against Eviction, Burden of Proof
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Agency Relationship Oral Contract Warranty Against Eviction Burden 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicolaas Johannes Petrus Van der Meulen

Plaintiff

Carolina Johanna Van der Meulen

Plaintiff

Pieter Joubert

Respondent

Platberg Lewende Hawe BK

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an oral agreement existed between the plaintiffs and the second defendant for the purchase of the cattle.
  2. 2 Whether the defendants acted as agents for the plaintiffs or as sellers.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove the existence of an oral agreement of sale between themselves and the second defendant. The evidence established that the second defendant acted only as an agent for the plaintiffs, facilitating the purchase of cattle from a third party. The plaintiffs’ reliance on a warranty against eviction was misplaced, as such a warranty presupposes a valid sale agreement, which was not proven. The tax invoice issued by the second defendant was for VAT purposes and did not constitute proof of a sale agreement. The plaintiffs did not communicate directly with the defendants regarding the sale, and their representative confirmed under...

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claims dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The action is dismissed with costs.