Wilson v Spitze (539/87) [1989] ZASCA 11 (16 March 1989)

Wilson v Spitze (539/87) [1989] ZASCA 11 (16 March 1989)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the contract did not require the appellant to provide an advance guarantee for the purchase price of the remaining four plots, only the standard transfer guarantee for each plot as transfer became due. The respondent's demand for a guarantee was premature, as he was not ready to lodge the transfer documents for the next plot and failed to inform the appellant when he would do so. The appellant was therefore not placed in mora by the respondent's letter of 8 April 1983. The appellant's conduct did not amount to repudiation, and the respondent did not accept any alleged repudiation but instead kept the contract alive by demanding performance. The...

Citation
[1989] ZASCA 11
Parties
Appellant: Lionheart Frederick David Wilson; Respondent: Werner Spitze
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 March 1989
Case Number
539/87
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of Cape Provincial Division
Outcome
Appeal upheld. The respondent's cancellation of the contract was unjustified. Judgment for the appellant for damages.
Judges
Hoexter, Botha, E M Grosskopf, Vivier, Eksteen
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Transfer of Land, Guarantee of Purchase Price, Damages for Breach, Repudiation, Mora
Land and Property Civil Procedure Breach of Contract Transfer of Land Guarantee of Purchase Price Damages for Breach Repudiation Mora

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lionheart Frederick David Wilson

Appellant

Werner Spitze

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of Cape Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was entitled to cancel the contract for sale of land due to the appellant's alleged failure to provide a guarantee for the purchase price of the remaining plots.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was placed in mora by the respondent's letter of demand regarding the transfer guarantee.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's conduct amounted to repudiation of the contract justifying cancellation.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the contract did not require the appellant to provide an advance guarantee for the purchase price of the remaining four plots, only the standard transfer guarantee for each plot as transfer became due. The respondent's demand for a guarantee was premature, as he was not ready to lodge the transfer documents for the next plot and failed to inform the appellant when he would do so. The appellant was therefore not placed in mora by the respondent's letter of 8 April 1983. The appellant's conduct did not amount to repudiation, and the respondent did not accept any alleged repudiation but instead kept the contract alive by demanding performance. The...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. The respondent's cancellation of the contract was unjustified. Judgment for the appellant for damages.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds with costs, including costs of two counsel, except as regards the trial court's special order for costs occasioned by the amendment to the Particulars of Claim on 19 February 1985.
  • The order of the trial court is substituted with judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of R42,044.00 with costs, except as set out in paragraph 3.