Van Huyssteen NO and Another v Mila Investment and Holding Company (Pty) Ltd (593/16) [2017] ZASCA 84 (2 June 2017)

Van Huyssteen NO and Another v Mila Investment and Holding Company (Pty) Ltd (593/16) [2017] ZASCA 84 (2 June 2017)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the high court erred in applying the doctrine of quasi-mutual assent to bind the Trust to the terms of the amended offer. The evidence showed that the amended offer was never accepted by Cape Gate, nor was it seen by the relevant party. The conduct of Cape Gate and Attfund did not amount to acceptance of the amended offer, and the rental paid was not in accordance with either the original offer or the amended offer. The Trust did not seek to be bound by the amended offer, and Milla, as plaintiff, failed to prove the existence of a contract on those terms. The doctrine of quasi-mutual assent cannot be used to bind a party to terms it does not seek to...

Citation
[2017] ZASCA 84
Parties
Appellant: Abraham Johannes van Huyssteen N O; Appellant: Marius Roelof van Huyssteen N O; Respondent: Milla Investment and Holding Company (Pty) Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 June 2017
Case Number
593/16
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape Division of the High Court, Cape Town
Outcome
Appeal upheld; action dismissed with costs.
Judges
Navsa, Cachalia, Majiedt, Swain, Mathopo
Legal Topics
Lease Agreement, Quasi Mutual Assent, Battle of the Forms, Oral Contract, Contractual Consensus
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Lease Agreement Quasi Mutual Assent Battle of the Forms Oral Contract Contractual Consensus

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abraham Johannes van Huyssteen N O

Appellant

Marius Roelof van Huyssteen N O

Appellant

Milla Investment and Holding Company (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape Division of the High Court, Cape Town

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the high court correctly apply the doctrine of quasi-mutual assent to the disputed lease agreement?
  2. 2 Was there a valid lease agreement between the parties on the terms of the amended offer or on the oral agreement alleged by the Trust?
  3. 3 Did the conduct of the parties result in a tacit lease agreement on the terms of the amended offer?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the high court erred in applying the doctrine of quasi-mutual assent to bind the Trust to the terms of the amended offer. The evidence showed that the amended offer was never accepted by Cape Gate, nor was it seen by the relevant party. The conduct of Cape Gate and Attfund did not amount to acceptance of the amended offer, and the rental paid was not in accordance with either the original offer or the amended offer. The Trust did not seek to be bound by the amended offer, and Milla, as plaintiff, failed to prove the existence of a contract on those terms. The doctrine of quasi-mutual assent cannot be used to bind a party to terms it does not seek to...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; action dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The order of the high court is set aside and substituted with: 'The action is dismissed with costs.'