Vision Projects (Pty) Ltd v Cooper Conroy Bell & Richards Inc (475/96) [1998] ZASCA 63; 1998 (4) SA 1182 (SCA); [1998] 4 All SA 281 (A) (10 September 1998)

Vision Projects (Pty) Ltd v Cooper Conroy Bell & Richards Inc (475/96) [1998] ZASCA 63; 1998 (4) SA 1182 (SCA); [1998] 4 All SA 281 (A) (10 September 1998)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that although the respondent breached its mandate by not linking the transfers as instructed, the appellant failed to prove that this breach caused its loss. The evidence established that the appellant was entitled to transfer of the erven regardless of whether they were registered in the name of Allied or Time Housing at the time of liquidation. The loss suffered by the appellant was due to the arbitrator's incorrect decision, not the respondent's breach. Furthermore, the appellant could have prevented the transfer to Time Housing after learning of the liquidation but failed to do so. The breach was not a causa sine qua non of the appellant's loss, and...

Citation
[1998] ZASCA 63
Parties
Appellant: Vision Projects (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Cooper Conroy Bell & Richards Inc
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 September 1998
Case Number
475/96
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Eastern Cape Provincial Division; Leave Granted by Court a Quo
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Vivier, F H Grosskopf, Nienaber, Plewman
Legal Topics
Breach of Mandate, Causation, Damages, Transfer of Property, Liquidation, Arbitration Costs
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Breach of Mandate Causation Damages Transfer of Property Liquidation Arbitration Costs

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

Parties

Vision Projects (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Cooper Conroy Bell & Richards Inc

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Eastern Cape Provincial Division; Leave Granted by Court a Quo

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the respondent breach its mandate by failing to link the property transfers as instructed by the appellant?
  2. 2 Did the appellant suffer loss as a result of the respondent's breach of mandate?
  3. 3 Was there a causal connection between the breach and the alleged damages suffered by the appellant?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that although the respondent breached its mandate by not linking the transfers as instructed, the appellant failed to prove that this breach caused its loss. The evidence established that the appellant was entitled to transfer of the erven regardless of whether they were registered in the name of Allied or Time Housing at the time of liquidation. The loss suffered by the appellant was due to the arbitrator's incorrect decision, not the respondent's breach. Furthermore, the appellant could have prevented the transfer to Time Housing after learning of the liquidation but failed to do so. The breach was not a causa sine qua non of the appellant's loss, and...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.