Novartis v Maphil (20229/2014)
Novartis v Maphil (20229/2014) [2015] ZASCA 111; 2016 (1) SA 518 (SCA); [2015] 4 All SA 417 (SCA) (3 September 2015)
The Supreme Court of Appeal found that a binding contract was concluded between Novartis and Maphil (formerly Hiline) by 30 November 2004, comprising a written marketing agreement, oral undertakings, and email exchanges. The parties intended to be bound, performed their obligations, and finalized marketing activities as contemplated. The court rejected Novartis's argument that the contract was inchoate or unenforceable, holding that the absence of perfect clarity or formality did not negate contractual force. The representatives of Novartis had actual authority to bind the company, and the co…
Source excerpt
- Contractual Authority
- Repudiation
- Enforceability Of Partly Written Partly Oral Contracts
- Contractual Interpretation
- Damages For Breach Of Contract