Esheria South Africa Case Law
Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
2 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter South Africa case law

Results update automatically as you type.

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Commercial And Corporate [2022] ZAGPJHC 531

Sanlam Life Insurance Limited v Future Energy Electrical (PTY) Limited and Another (2019/8534)

Sanlam Life Insurance Limited v Future Energy Electrical (PTY) Limited and Another (2019/8534) [2022] ZAGPJHC 531 (30 June 2022)

Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
2019/8534
Judge
L.J. du Bruyn

The court found that the respondents, particularly Ms Pillay, signed the settlement agreement without indicating any lack of understanding or objection to the disputed clauses. As a businesswoman, Ms Pillay had the opportunity to read, consider, and seek legal advice on the agreement. The clauses in question were neither unusual nor unduly onerous in the context of a commercial settlement. Applying the reliance theory, the court held that Sanlam reasonably believed the respondents intended to be bound by all terms of the agreement. The respondents' alleged error was not justifiable, and there…

Source excerpt

  • Settlement Agreement
  • Contractual Dissensus
  • Iustus Error
  • Misrepresentation By Omission
  • Attorney And Client Costs
Read case analysis
Commercial And Corporate [2005] ZASCA 29

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)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
143/04
Judges
Brand, Howie, Farlam, Lewis, Van Heerden

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
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.