Wilkins NO v Voges (482/92) [1994] ZASCA 53; 1994 (3) SA 130 (AD); [1994] 2 All SA 349 (A) (29 March 1994)

Wilkins NO v Voges (482/92) [1994] ZASCA 53; 1994 (3) SA 130 (AD); [1994] 2 All SA 349 (A) (29 March 1994)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the alleged tacit term warranting the absence of obstacles to township development could not be inferred from the contract or the conduct of the parties. The contract was comprehensive, and the seller's obligations were expressly limited. The appellant failed to establish that both parties would necessarily have agreed to such a warranty had they considered the possibility of the provincial road. The evidence did not support the existence of an actual or imputed tacit term, nor was such a term necessary for business efficacy. The appellant's reliance on the term was an afterthought, and the complexity and alternatives suggested undermined its...

Citation
[1994] ZASCA 53
Parties
Appellant: A.D. Wilkins N.O.; Respondent: Timotheus Pieter Voges
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 March 1994
Case Number
482/92
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Full Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Nienaber, Joubert, EM Grosskopf, Kumleben, Howie
Legal Topics
Tacit Terms, Sale of Land, Alienation of Land Act, Business Efficacy, Contractual Warranties
Commercial and Corporate Land and Property Tacit Terms Sale of Land Alienation of Land Act Business Efficacy Contractual Warranties

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

Parties

A.D. Wilkins N.O.

Appellant

Timotheus Pieter Voges

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Full Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a tacit term existed in the sale agreement warranting that no obstacle would delay, interfere with, or limit the establishment of a township on the property.
  2. 2 Whether the alleged tacit term was breached by the seller's failure to disclose the planned provincial road.
  3. 3 Whether the absence of such a term precludes the buyer's claim for damages.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the alleged tacit term warranting the absence of obstacles to township development could not be inferred from the contract or the conduct of the parties. The contract was comprehensive, and the seller's obligations were expressly limited. The appellant failed to establish that both parties would necessarily have agreed to such a warranty had they considered the possibility of the provincial road. The evidence did not support the existence of an actual or imputed tacit term, nor was such a term necessary for business efficacy. The appellant's reliance on the term was an afterthought, and the complexity and alternatives suggested undermined its...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.