Constantia Insurance Company Ltd v Compusource (Pty) Ltd (143/2004)
Constantia Insurance Company Ltd v Compusource (Pty) Ltd (143/2004) [2005] ZASCA 29; 2005 (4) SA 345 (SCA) (30 March 2005)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that although Constantia's representatives genuinely believed Rust had agreed to clause 3.5, a reasonable person in their position would have doubted that Rust intended to bind Compusource to such an onerous obligation, especially given the novelty of the insurance, the financial position of Compusource, and the absence of reference to the clause in the explanatory documents. The reasonable person would have sought confirmation from Rust regarding his understanding of clause 3.5. Since this did not occur, there was no consensus on the clause, and Compusource c…
Source excerpt
- Insurance Contracts
- Consensus In Contract
- Misrepresentation By Omission
- Enforceability Of Terms