Visser v Dinokeng Lofts (Pty) Ltd (86788/15) [2017] ZAGPPHC 264 (31 March 2017)

Visser v Dinokeng Lofts (Pty) Ltd (86788/15) [2017] ZAGPPHC 264 (31 March 2017)

The court found that the contract between the parties, as evidenced by the competition brochure and entry form, clearly guaranteed a first prize of R500 000.00 for the main race, irrespective of the number of paid entries. Clause 4 of the prize money guarantee was specifically underlined to indicate that the first prize would not be adjusted. The respondent's discretion to adjust prize money applied only to other prizes, not the main race prize. The purported variation by email was ineffective, as the contract required any variation to be in writing and signed by both parties, which did not occur. The applicant was therefore entitled to the difference between the guaranteed prize and the...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 264
Parties
Applicant: Rudolf Visser; Respondent: Dinokeng Lofts (Pty) Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 March 2017
Case Number
86788/15
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application granted. The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant the sum claimed with interest.
Judges
Mali
Legal Topics
Contract Interpretation, Variation of Contract, Parol Evidence Rule, Specific Performance
Commercial and Corporate Contract Interpretation Variation of Contract Parol Evidence Rule Specific Performance

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rudolf Visser

Applicant

Dinokeng Lofts (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is contractually obliged to pay the applicant the guaranteed first prize sum of R500 000.00.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was entitled to adjust the prize money based on the number of paid entries received.
  3. 3 Whether the contract was validly varied by email correspondence prior to the race.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the contract between the parties, as evidenced by the competition brochure and entry form, clearly guaranteed a first prize of R500 000.00 for the main race, irrespective of the number of paid entries. Clause 4 of the prize money guarantee was specifically underlined to indicate that the first prize would not be adjusted. The respondent's discretion to adjust prize money applied only to other prizes, not the main race prize. The purported variation by email was ineffective, as the contract required any variation to be in writing and signed by both parties, which did not occur. The applicant was therefore entitled to the difference between the guaranteed prize and the...

Court Disposition

Application granted. The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant the sum claimed with interest.

Orders

  • The respondent shall pay the applicant the sum of R343 441.76 together with interest at 10.5% per annum from the date of this order.