Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Maifadi v Dos Anjos Pedro (2020/27885) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1102 (31 October 2024)
The High Court refused leave to appeal after finding no reasonable prospect of success in a property sale dispute involving alleged encroachment and misrepresentation.
Van Rensburg v Electrogrid (Pty) Limited (27845/2018) [2021] ZAGPJHC 406 (7 September 2021)
The High Court held that the contract was for an off-grid solar system, not a start-up battery system, and ordered repayment of the contract price plus costs.
Verwey v Sunrose GP (Pty) Ltd t/a Sunrose Online (GCC/07/2019) [2019] ZACONAF 4 (3 December 2019)
The Defendant supplied a food mixer to the Plaintiff that was represented as having a 40-litre bowl capacity, but in fact only held approximately 31 litres. The Plaintiff relied on the specifications in the brochure and labelling, and the discrepancy rendered the mixer unsuitable for its intended business purpose. The Plaintiff notified the Defendant immediately, returned the mixer, and sought a refund. The Defendant's procedural objections were dismissed, and its offers to replace the bowl or reduce the price were belated and not implemented. The Consumer Protection Act entitles consumers to…
Source excerpt
Thor Shipping and Transport SA (Pty) Limited and Another v Sunset Beach Trading 208 CC t/a Auto Complete (AR664/2016) [2017] ZAKZPHC 44 (3 November 2017)
Appeal over a vehicle repair dispute: misrepresentation was not proved, but claims for an original engine and storage charges failed.
Right Gold Machinery(Pty)Ltd v Tsholofetso Mining Supplers(Pty)Ltd and Another (50477/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 784 (26 August 2016)
The court found that the plaintiff's particulars of claim were not vague or embarrassing and did not fail to disclose a cause of action. The claims for misrepresentation, breach of warranty, breach of contract, and a tacit contract with the second defendant were adequately pleaded. The court held that the voetstoots clause in the contract was ambiguous and could not be interpreted at exception stage to immunize the first defendant from liability for negligent or fraudulent misrepresentation. The existence of implied and tacit terms was reasonably pleaded, and the conduct alleged supported the…
Source excerpt
Tiador 15 CC t/a Remax Independent Properties v Troskie (Junior) N.O and Others (3624/2014) [2016] ZAECGHC 59 (16 August 2016)
The High Court held that an estate agent was the effective cause of a land sale and was entitled to commission, and that the indemnity clause was enforceable.
Combrink en Saltcom Commodity Traders en ander (A130/2015) [2015] ZAFSHC 249 (10 December 2015)
High Court appeal over a suretyship in a credit application was dismissed after the court found no iustus error or misleading conduct.
Wallace and Another v Nel and Others (60714/2009) [2014] ZAGPPHC 844 (16 October 2014)
The court found the plaintiffs were induced by misrepresentations in property-development finance agreements and awarded restitution, interest, and costs.
Steenkamp v Janse van Rensburg (2130/2010) [2012] ZANCHC 43 (6 September 2012)
High Court decision on exception and amendment: the plaintiff’s proposed pleading amendments were refused, the defendant’s exception was upheld, and leave to amend was granted.
Evans v Tony de Jong Properties (7937/09) [2012] ZAKZPHC 25 (24 April 2012)
The High Court held that the defendant failed to prove misrepresentation or repudiation and ordered payment of the plaintiff’s commission share.
Explore more
