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
Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd v Santam Ltd and Another (44268/19) [2022] ZAGPJHC 1045 (12 August 2022)
The High Court held that Eskom’s demand under a performance guarantee complied with all contractual requirements, and ordered Santam to pay the guaranteed sum plus interest and costs.
Micromath Trading 10 CC t/a St Georges Hotel v The Patric Partnership and Another (25461/2010) [2011] ZAWCHC 190 (29 March 2011)
The court dismissed an application to hold the respondents in contempt and to compel reinstatement of security under a settlement made an order of court.
Kwikspace Modular Buildings Ltd v Sabodala Mining Company Sarl and Another (173/09) [2010] ZASCA 15; [2010] 3 All SA 467 (SCA) ; 2010 (6) SA 477 (SCA) (18 March 2010)
Australian law recognises that a building contract may contain enforceable provisions limiting the right of a beneficiary to present an unconditional performance guarantee, but such limitations must be expressly stated or clearly implied. In this case, GC 5.5 did not require final resolution of disputes before the Principal could present the guarantees, nor did it incorporate a tacit term obliging the Principal to set out the grounds for its demand. The Superintendent's certificate created an enforceable right for the Principal, and the Contractor's failure to pay justified recourse to the gu…
Source excerpt
Johannesburg Development Agency (Pty) Ltd v Federated Insurance Guarantees Brokers (Pty) Ltd (6647/06) [2007] ZAKZHC 57 (30 April 2007)
The court held that a construction guarantee was a principal obligation, triggered by a compliant demand after cancellation, and ordered payment.
Wiid and Another v Wxplomin No 1 (EDMS) Bpk and Another (1175/03) [2004] ZANCHC 4 (1 January 2004)
The court found that Explomin had materially breached the mining contract by failing to provide the required rehabilitation guarantee and by not rehabilitating the land on an ongoing basis as required by clause 9. The notice of 10 October 2003, although specifying 7 days, was valid and afforded Explomin the full 15 days stipulated in the contract to remedy the breaches. Explomin failed to remedy the breaches within this period. The Trust did not waive its right to cancel the contract, and cancellation was properly communicated after the expiry of the remedy period. The applicants were entitle…
Source excerpt
Explore more
