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
Grey Global Group Inc v Khumalo and Another (725/10) [2011] ZASCA 160 (28 September 2011)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that exercising a put option created a binding sale, and that closing and delivery obligations did not make the sale conditional.
Wonderhoek Farms (Edms) Bpk v Burgess en Anders (556/2011) [2011] ZAFSHC 67 (24 March 2011)
The court found that all conditions for transfer of the property had been met by July 2010, and that the option agreement did not specify a time for exercise. Applying established principles, the court held that a reasonable time for exercise had expired by the time the applicant's attorneys sent their letter on 15 November 2010. The first notification from the third respondent was a counter-offer, not a valid exercise of the option, and was not accepted by the applicant. Even if the second notification was considered, the reasonable period had already expired. Consequently, the option agreem…
Source excerpt
Exdev (Pty) Ltd and Another v Pekudei Investments (Pty) Ltd (97/10) [2010] ZASCA 170; 2011 (2) SA 282 (SCA) ; [2011] 2 All SA 371 (SCA) (1 December 2010)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the sale and option agreements in clause 3 of the contract were separate, divisible, and independent. The sale of the office unit was valid and enforceable, as the essential characteristics—size and number of parking bays—were specified, and the seller's discretion over shape and location did not render the description too vague. The court applied established principles that a property need not be described with meticulous accuracy, and that subsequent selection or determination by one party is permissible if the essential features are agreed. The excepti…
Source excerpt
Lob v Carribean Estates (Pty) Ltd (2007/16441) [2010] ZAGPJHC 72 (8 September 2010)
The court refused leave to amend a plea and counterclaim, holding that alleged lack of good faith did not invalidate the exercise of an option right.
Exdev (Pty) Ltd v Yeoman Properties 1007 (Pty) Ltd and Others (314/06) [2007] ZASCA 107; [2007] SCA 107 (RSA); [2008] 2 All SA 223 (SCA) (19 September 2007)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that an option to buy immovable property is not invalid merely because it omits payment terms; the law implies cash against transfer.
Westraad NO en 'n Ander v Burger (5226/06) [2007] ZAFSHC 34 (13 April 2007)
The court held that the option contract was not rendered void by section 3(e)(i) of the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act, as the Act's prohibition applies to sales and not to the mere granting of an option. The definition of 'sale' in the Act does not encompass an option contract, which only becomes a sale upon exercise of the option after ministerial consent. The ministerial consent granted in this case was subject to a condition (consolidation of properties in different registers) that was legally impossible to fulfil under the Deeds Registries Act. Therefore, the consent did not consti…
Source excerpt
Oos Vrystaat Kaap Bedryf Beperk v Van Aswagwen (3016/2003) [2004] ZAFSHC 141; 2005 (4) SA 417 (O) (9 September 2004)
The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the contract document constituted an irrevocable offer for 14 days or that an option contract was concluded. The wording of clause 21 did not amount to an offer to keep the offer open, but rather set a period for acceptance. The defendant's husband, Mr Van Aswegen, was found to have had authority to sign the contract document on her behalf, either expressly or tacitly, but the offer was revoked before acceptance. The revocation was communicated to the plaintiff's representative, Mr Steyn, prior to the plai…
Source excerpt
Trans-Natal Steenkookorporasie Bpk v Lombard and Another (182/1987) [1988] ZASCA 54 (23 May 1988)
The court held that notice exercising the option had to be given to the original owners, not a later purchaser, and the respondents were not entitled to the option sum.
Sommer v Wilding (258/82) [1984] ZASCA 53; [1984] 4 ALL SA 356 (AD) ; 1984 (3) SA 647 (A) (22 May 1984)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant, as the grantee of an option to purchase shares, was required to prove on a balance of probabilities that he would have exercised the option during its currency in order to establish a causal link between the respondent's breach and the damages claimed. The Court found that the appellant failed to discharge this onus, as the evidence indicated significant uncertainty regarding whether he would have exercised the option, given the deteriorating relationship between the parties, unresolved terms of the contemplated agreement, and the appellant…
Source excerpt
Explore more
