Van Der Westhuizen v Arnold (414/2000) [2002] ZASCA 82; [2002] 4 All SA 331 (SCA); 2002 (6) SA 453 (SCA) (29 August 2002)

Van Der Westhuizen v Arnold (414/2000) [2002] ZASCA 82; [2002] 4 All SA 331 (SCA); 2002 (6) SA 453 (SCA) (29 August 2002)

The majority of the court held that the exclusion clause in the sale agreement, which stated that no warranties whatsoever were given, was not sufficiently clear and unambiguous to exclude the implied warranty against eviction. The phrase 'geen waarborge hoegenaamd' was interpreted, in light of the background and surrounding circumstances, as referring only to express and tacit warranties relating to the condition of the car, not to the fundamental obligation of the seller to provide undisturbed possession. The court found that neither party had contemplated exclusion of the warranty against eviction, and that the clause should be construed narrowly, especially as it was drafted by the...

Citation
[2002] ZASCA 82
Parties
Appellant: Gideon Andries van der Westhuizen; Respondent: Johan Heinrich Arnold
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 August 2002
Case Number
414/2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Cape High Court, Which Had Heard an Appeal From the Magistrate's Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs. The appellant remains liable for breach of the implied warranty against eviction.
Judges
Marais, Heher, Lewis
Legal Topics
Contractual Exclusion Clauses, Implied Warranty Against Eviction, Interpretation of Contracts, Voetstoots Sale, Contra Proferentem, Damages for Eviction
Commercial and Corporate Contractual Exclusion Clauses Implied Warranty Against Eviction Interpretation of Contracts Voetstoots Sale Contra Proferentem Damages for Eviction

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

Parties

Gideon Andries van der Westhuizen

Appellant

Johan Heinrich Arnold

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Cape High Court, Which Had Heard an Appeal From the Magistrate's Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the exclusion clause in the sale agreement excluded the implied warranty against eviction.
  2. 2 Whether the phrase 'geen waarborge hoegenaamd' is sufficiently clear and unambiguous to exclude liability for breach of the implied warranty against eviction.
  3. 3 Whether background and surrounding circumstances should be considered in interpreting the exclusion clause.

Ratio Decidendi

The majority of the court held that the exclusion clause in the sale agreement, which stated that no warranties whatsoever were given, was not sufficiently clear and unambiguous to exclude the implied warranty against eviction. The phrase 'geen waarborge hoegenaamd' was interpreted, in light of the background and surrounding circumstances, as referring only to express and tacit warranties relating to the condition of the car, not to the fundamental obligation of the seller to provide undisturbed possession. The court found that neither party had contemplated exclusion of the warranty against eviction, and that the clause should be construed narrowly, especially as it was drafted by the...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs. The appellant remains liable for breach of the implied warranty against eviction.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • The appellant is liable for breach of the warranty against eviction.