Redriver Development (Pvt) Ltd v Provenance Support Company (HH 183 of 2003) [2003] ZWHHC 183 (11 November 2003)

Redriver Development (Pvt) Ltd v Provenance Support Company (HH 183 of 2003) [2003] ZWHHC 183 (11 November 2003)

The court held that the defendant's reliance on the exemption clause was misplaced because such clauses do not protect a party from liability for a fundamental breach of contract. The defendant failed to supply the software and services in a professional manner as contracted, amounting to a fundamental breach. Therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to a refund despite the exemption clause.

Citation
[2003] ZWHHC 183
Parties
Plaintiff: Redriver Development (Pvt) Limited; Defendant: Provenance Support Company
Court
Harare High Court
Jurisdiction
Zimbabwe
Judgment Date
11 November 2003
Case Number
HH 183 of 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
judgment for the plaintiff
Legal Topics
Exemption Clauses, Fundamental Breach, Contractual Penalties, Consumer Protection
Source Language
English
Contract Law Exemption Clauses Fundamental Breach Contractual Penalties Consumer Protection

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Redriver Development (Pvt) Limited

Plaintiff

Provenance Support Company

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is liable to refund the plaintiff for failure to supply software and services as contracted
  2. 2 Whether the exemption clause in the contract precludes the plaintiff's claim for refund in the event of fundamental breach

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the defendant's reliance on the exemption clause was misplaced because such clauses do not protect a party from liability for a fundamental breach of contract. The defendant failed to supply the software and services in a professional manner as contracted, amounting to a fundamental breach. Therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to a refund despite the exemption clause.

Court Disposition

judgment for the plaintiff

Orders

  • Defendant to pay plaintiff $56,120.00 as claimed in the summons
  • Defendant to pay interest at 25% per annum from 24 February 2000 to date of full payment