South Africa Case Law

Valdor Holdings (Pty) Limited and Another v Dallas Trucking (Pty) Limited and Another (2019/23212)

Valdor Holdings (Pty) Limited and Another v Dallas Trucking (Pty) Limited and Another (2019/23212) [2019] ZAGPJHC 254 (19 July 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2019/23212

Judge

L R Adams

The High Court granted urgent specific performance over a truck-and-trailer sale, finding the contract was for an all-inclusive R800,000 and rejecting the respondents’ contrary version.

• Specific Performance
• Contract Interpretation
• Urgent Interdict
• Purchase And Sale
• Motion Proceedings
• Specific-performance

Gridmark CC v Razia Trading CC (349/18)

Gridmark CC v Razia Trading CC (349/18) [2019] ZASCA 18 (25 March 2019)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

349/18

Judges

Cachalia, Majiedt, Van der Merwe, Mocumie, Dlodlo

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that no compromise was concluded because the parties’ correspondence showed a counter-offer and no unqualified acceptance.

• Contractual Compromise
• Novation
• Acceptance Of Offer
• Repudiation
• Purchase And Sale
• Interpretation Of Correspondence

Petit Board Wholesalers v Livingston Chrichton Attorneys (A3001/2018)

Petit Board Wholesalers v Livingston Chrichton Attorneys (A3001/2018) [2018] ZAGPJHC 570 (6 September 2018)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A3001/2018

Judges

L R Adams, P H Malungana

The High Court dismissed an appeal over a disputed sale agreement, finding the objective facts showed a contract for wood and related materials and ordering costs against the appellant.

• Contract Formation
• Purchase And Sale
• Objective Intention
• Locus Standi
• Interpretation Of Documents
• Contract-formation

Stoltz v Steenkamp (127/17)

Stoltz v Steenkamp (127/17) [2018] ZASCA 84 (31 May 2018)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

127/17

Judges

Shongwe, Majiedt, Saldulker, Rogers, Schippers

Appeal over the sale price of a harvester dismissed. The court held the appellant failed to prove a R750,000 purchase price and accepted the respondent’s version.

• Purchase And Sale
• Oral Contract
• Proof Of Purchase Price
• Mutually Destructive Versions
• Purchase-and-sale
• Oral-contract

Broadway Sweet v Bon Bon Sweets CC and Another (2008/11025)

Broadway Sweet v Bon Bon Sweets CC and Another (2008/11025) [2014] ZAGPJHC 262 (15 July 2014)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2008/11025

Judge

Tshabalala

High Court held that the sellers misrepresented the condition and capacity of machinery sold, entitling the buyer to resile and recover the purchase price.

• Misrepresentation
• Purchase And Sale
• Voetstoots Clause
• Parole Evidence Rule
• Restitution
• Counterclaim

Absa Bank Beperk h/a Bankfin v Ntt Toyota (14684/2004)

Absa Bank Beperk h/a Bankfin v Ntt Toyota (14684/2004) [2009] ZAGPPHC 263 (24 August 2009)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

14684/2004

Judge

P Ellis

The High Court held that eviction occurred before summons when SARS notice made it clear the vehicle could not be lawfully proved imported, so the buyer could recover the price.

• Implied Warranty Against Eviction
• Customs And Excise Act
• Repossession
• Purchase And Sale
• Proof Of Importation
• Implied-warranty-against-eviction

Maize Board v Hart (248/05)

Maize Board v Hart (248/05) [2006] ZASCA 4; [2006] SCA 4 (RSA) (7 March 2006)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

248/05

Judges

Streicher, Brand, Jafta

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that lease and management agreements were simulated and in substance a sale, making the respondent liable for maize levies.

• Simulation Of Contracts
• Purchase And Sale
• Levies On Agricultural Products
• Emptio Spei
• Emptio Rei Speratae
• Simulation-of-contracts

B C Plant Hire cc t/a B C Carriers v Grenco (SA) (PTY) Ltd (1090/2002)

B C Plant Hire cc t/a B C Carriers v Grenco (SA) (PTY) Ltd (1090/2002) [2003] ZAWCHC 70; [2004] 1 All SA 612 (C); 2004 (4) SA 550 (C) (12 December 2003)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

1090/2002

Judges

D H Van Zyl, M H E Ismail

The court found that, despite the parties' confusion and poor pleadings, the substance of their agreement was one of purchase and sale, with the respondent supplying and installing the refrigeration unit for the appellant. The risk of destruction passed to the appellant once the contract became unconditional and the unit was delivered and used by the appellant. The appellant's failure to insure the unit was its own responsibility, and the respondent was entitled to payment for the unit despite its destruction prior to financing. The court rejected arguments based on deposit, loan for use, or…

Source excerpt

• Passing Of Risk
• Purchase And Sale
• Letting And Hiring Of Work
• Misnomer
• Credit Agreement
• Insurance Liability