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
Tractor World v Mzwali (CA 105/2022) [2023] ZAECMKHC 23 (14 March 2023)
Appeal dismissed: the appellant’s plea did not disclose a bona fide defence to summary judgment over a defective maize planter.
TV Screen damaged: out of warranty period (2013108327) [2014] ZACGSO 11 (3 February 2014)
The Ombud dismissed a consumer complaint over a damaged laptop screen after the six-month statutory return period and warranty had expired.
Defect material; Consumer entitled to refund (2013611175) [2013] ZACGSO 4 (16 August 2013)
A consumer goods ombud held that repeated unsuccessful repairs showed a bedroom suite defect was material, entitling the consumer to cancel and receive a refund.
Buchan v Stockdale and Another (2563/2009) [2011] ZAECGHC 18 (26 May 2011)
The court held that clause 11.4 required the sellers to deliver the game listed in Addendum B when the farm transferred.
Masterspice (Pty) Ltd v Broszeit Investments CC (252/05) [2006] ZASCA 54; 2006 (6) SA 1 (SCA) (31 March 2006)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Masterspice failed to show a contractual breach could not be remedied by money, so cancellation and winding-up failed.
Sentraal-Suid Kooperasie Bpk. v Bessemer Staalkonstruksie (Edms) Bpk. (516/04) [2006] ZASCA 22; [2006] SCA 21 (RSA) (20 March 2006)
The SCA held the silo maker liable for structural defect repairs, but not for losses from spoiled canola stored in the silos.
De Swartd v House of Trucks (EDMS) Beperk (19/2002) [2003] ZAFSHC 18 (4 September 2003)
The court found on a balance of probabilities that a binding oral contract was concluded on 8 February 2001 between the plaintiff and defendant for the manufacture and delivery of two tanker trailers at a price of R512,000 plus VAT per unit. The exclusion of consequential damages contained in the written quotation was not communicated to the plaintiff prior to contract formation and was therefore not incorporated into the contract. The defendant's conduct, including repeated attempts to repair the defective tankers and correspondence acknowledging the contract, confirmed the existence of the…
Source excerpt
Explore more
