J U L Y V O L U M E 6 3
|
|
- Byron Blankenship
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 LEGAL MATTERS J U L Y V O L U M E 6 3 For a contract to be considered valid and binding in South Africa, certain requirements must be met, inter alia, there must be consensus ad idem between the contracting parties, the parties must have seriously intended the agreement to result in terms which can be enforced and the parties must have the requisite capacity to contract. In this article we will specifically focus on the requirement of consensus ad idem which refers to the intentions of the parties forming the contract. We will look at case law to determine what happens in the instance where a party signs a contract without reading it - and whether it can be said that the requirement of consensus ad idem has been met in such instances or not. As stated above, the requirement of consensus ad idem refers to the contracting parties having a common understanding in the formation of the contract. The law, as a general rule, concerns itself with the external manifestations, and not the workings, of the minds of parties to a contract. Consequently, a person s signature on a contract signifies his acceptance to the contents of the document - the other party is therefore reasonably entitled to assume that the signatory, by signing the document, was signifying his intention to be bound by it. Page 1
2 This is known as caveat subscriptor rule, which can literally be translated as let the signer beware", which goes hand in hand with the doctrine of pacta sunt servanda ( a legal contract must be honoured ), which means that an agreement, seriously entered into, must be honoured. However, as with most rules, there are exceptions. Iustus error is one of the recognised defences to the caveat subscriptor rule. Best explained in National & Overseas Distributors Corporation (Pty) Ltd v Potato Board 1958 (2) SA 473 (AD): "Our law allows a party to set up his own mistake in certain circumstances in order to escape liability under a contract into which he has entered. But where the other party has not made any misrepresentation and has not appreciated at the time of acceptance that his offer was being accepted under a misapprehension, the scope for a defence of unilateral mistake is very narrow, if it exists at all. At least the mistake (error) would have to be reasonable (justus) and it would have to be pleaded." (my emphasis) The above makes it clear that a party who wants to rely on the defence of iustus error must show that his error was reasonable in the circumstances. The crux, however, lies in whether or not a reasonable man would have been misled in such circumstances. In the matter of Sonap Petroleum (SA) (Pty) Ltd (formerly known as Sonarep (SA) (Pty) Ltd) v Pappadogianis [1992] 2 All SA 114 (A) the court set out the criteria for determining whether a mistake was iustus (reasonable) and determined that the decisive question is this: did the party whose actual intention did not conform to the common intention expressed, lead the other party, as a reasonable man, to believe that his declared intention represented his actual intention? To answer this question, a threefold enquiry has to be held: 1. Was there a misrepresentation as to one of the party s intention? 2. Who made that representation? 3. Was the other party misled thereby (which proposes two possibilities first, was the party actually misled and, secondly, would a reasonable man have been misled)? One of the most quoted cases on the topic is the Slip Knot Investments 777 v Willem Malan Du Toit [2011] JOL (SCA) matter. This appeal concerned the defence of iustus error to a claim seeking to enforce an agreement of suretyship. The respondent (the fifth respondent in the court below), although admitting that he signed the deed of suretyship, denied that he was liable and averred that he signed by mistake and without the intention to incur contractual liability. The appellant had lent R6 million to a trust in which the respondent was a trustee. The respondent and two others signed a deed of suretyship in the appellant s favour. When the trust reneged on the agreement, the appellant obtained judgment against the trust and the sureties. The trust and the estate of one of the sureties were subsequently sequestrated, and the appellant accordingly proceeded against the respondent. The respondent, however, pleaded that he had signed the deed of suretyship in error (iustus error). His explanation was that he was a farmer, and had nothing to do with the business conducted by the trust. His brother and nephew were the other trustees, and it was they who had negotiated the transaction with the appellant. The appellant and respondent had no dealings with each other. The respondent averred that he had no interest in the trust assets or its income and although he was one of the three trustees, that was in name only. He alleged that he Page 2
3 had received the deed of suretyship at a time when he was busy on his farm, and under pressure from his brother and nephew, signed the document on the assumption that his brother and nephew had agreed to the terms on which the appellant would advance monies to the trust and that his signature was required as a trustee only. He stated that he did not read the documents and never expected a suretyship to be amongst them. No one drew his attention to the suretyship. His defence was that he lacked the intention to be bound and therefore that no agreement of suretyship was concluded. In response, the appellant argued that although the respondent s mistake may have been induced by fraud, i.e.: the omission of his brother or his nephew to draw the suretyship to his attention, the binding force of the suretyship was not affected thereby. In coming to its decision the SCA took a very strict approach and held that the lower court s emphasis on the fact that the respondent was a farmer and not a businessman and that he had nothing to do with the trust and the loan advanced to the trust was incorrect. The respondent was a trustee of the trust. He may have been a farmer but this is of no consequence. The respondent had his own trusts and managed them. He must have known what a trust was and what the duties and responsibilities of a trustee were. Slip Knot was entitled to rely on the respondent's signature as a surety just as it was entitled to rely on his signature as a trustee. A contracting party is generally not bound to inform the other party of the terms of the proposed agreement. He must do so, however, where there are terms that could not reasonably have been expected in the contract. The respondent relied entirely on what was conveyed to him by his nephew through Altro Potgieter (the respondent's friend). Slip Knot made no misrepresentation to him and there is no suggestion on the respondent's papers that Slip Knot knew or ought, as a reasonable person, to have known of his mistake. The appeal was accordingly upheld with costs and the judgement of the court a quo was set aside. In the matter of Brink v Humphries & Jewell (Pty) Ltd [2005] 2 All SA 343 (SCA) the respondent (as Plaintiff in the court a quo) sued a company to whom it had granted credit, and the appellant who had signed as surety for the company. The respondent relied on the caveat subscriptor rule which is of course that a person who signs a document is taken to have assented to what appears above his signature. The appellant pleaded justifiable mistake (iustus error) he argued that he was unaware that the credit application which he signed incorporated a suretyship. The trial court gave judgment in favour of the respondent which accordingly led to this appeal. The SCA held that a party to a contract can rely on iustus error to repudiate his apparent acceptance to a contractual term if he has not, by his conduct, led the other party, as a reasonable man, to believe that he was binding himself. If the other party caused the iustus error through misrepresentation, then the party relying on the defence is not bound by the contract. Such misrepresentation need not be fraudulent - innocent misrepresentation would suffice in instances where it is material - and the signatory can cancel the contract because of the misrepresentation, provided he can show that he would not have entered into the contract if he had known the truth. In deciding whether a misrepresentation was made, all the relevant circumstances must be taken into account and each case will depend on its own facts. The SCA held that the furnishing of a document misleading in its terms can, without more, constitute such a misrepresentation. At paragraph 11 the SCA held: [11] In my view the form in question was a trap for the unwary and the appellant was justifiably misled by it.. It is true that the appellant had ample opportunity to read the form carefully and he did not avail himself of that opportunity. But that is no answer. It is not reasonable for a party who has induced a justifiable mistake in a signatory as to the contents of a document to assert that the signatory would not have been misled had he read the document carefully; and such a party cannot accordingly rely on the doctrine of quasi-mutual assent. (my emphasis) The SCA accordingly concluded that the respondent s conduct in furnishing the form, which was misleading, induced a fundamental mistake on the part of the appellant: he thought he was signing a credit application form on behalf of the company, whereas he was, in addition, undertaking a personal suretyship for the debts of the company. The suretyship obligation was accordingly held to be void ab initio and that appeal succeeded. Page 3
4 The Cape Town High Court recently decided that a surety who had not read a lease agreement that contained a suretyship clause before she signed it, was not bound by the suretyship because there was a lack of consensus to be bound. The respondent argued that she was not involved in the operation of the business and described herself as a sleeping partner. She was not involved in the negotiation of the contract of lease either - she left the matters in the hands of George Manousakis who did all the negotiations and other work required for setting up the restaurant. She trusted him and simply attended a meeting where she was called upon to sign certain documents which she did without realising that they contained the suretyship clause. She never read the documents and she contended that she was only presented with the documents at the meeting. It was also clear from the evidence that the creditor (Appellant) drafted the lease agreement and the agreement of suretyship. The respondent accordingly argued that the appellant knew she was not involved in the negotiations prior to signing the documents and therefore could not assume she was aware than an agreement of surety was amongst the documents. The court considered the principles laid down in the Sonap matter (discussed above) and stressed that she signed the agreement of suretyship without reading it whilst under the impression that she was signing a lease agreement. In applying the three-fold enquiry as laid down in the Sonap matter the court held that it can be accepted that by signing the surety agreement the respondent misrepresented to the appellant that she intended to bind herself in favour of the appellant. What remained was to examine whether a reasonable man would have been misled which is an objective test as to whether or not a suretyship agreement could have reasonably been expected or not. Considering the circumstances (i.e.: the respondent was presented with the agreement for the first time at the meeting where she was asked to sign, which she did without reading it) in conjunction with the fact that the agreement was drafted by the appellant, the court held that the appellant had a duty to speak and alert the respondent to the fact that she was required to bind herself as surety in respect of the lease agreement prior to her signing the document. The inference is inevitable that the appellant was aware of the respondent s mistake. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. The law recognises that it would be unconscionable for a person to enforce the terms of a document where he misled the signatory, whether intentionally or not. Where such a misrepresentation is material, the signatory can cancel the contract because of the misrepresentation, provided he can show that he would not have entered into the contract if he had known the truth. Where the misrepresentation results in a fundamental mistake, the contract is void ab initio. In this way the law gives effect to the principle that a person, in signing a document, is taken to be bound by the ordinary meaning and effect of the words which appear over his/her signature, while at the same time protecting such a person if he/she is under a justifiable misapprehension, caused by the other party who requires such signature, as to the effect of the document. From a legal perspective, I agree with this. I do, however, struggle to agree with the Parys determination, considering that its trite law that a contracting party is generally not bound to inform the other party of the terms of the proposed agreement. He must do so, however, where there are terms that could not reasonably have been expected in the contract. The court, however, appeared to not even consider the format of the contract at all. Surely, the respondent should have known by even a cursory examination of the documents signed, that they included a suretyship? Especially considering this was a commercial lease? Page 4
5 Nevertheless, I think it s clear from the above cited case law that one must be very careful before signing a contract especially considering the risk that, should the matter proceed to court, the court could very well take a strict approach as it did in the Slipknot matter and hold you liable, whether you read the document or not. Page 5
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case No: 176/2010 In the matter between: SLIP KNOT INVESTMENTS 777 (PTY) LTD Appellant and WILLEM MALAN DU TOIT Respondent (Fifth Respondent in the
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE PORT ELIZABETH. Case No: 2240/2010 Date Heard: 16/02/12 Date Delivered: 23/02/12. In the matter between
Reportable IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE PORT ELIZABETH Case No: 2240/2010 Date Heard: 16/02/12 Date Delivered: 23/02/12 In the matter between ABSA BANK LIMITED Plaintiff and PAUL DENEYS
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN. Case No: 1310/ /2010. In the matters between (Case No.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN Case No: 1310/2011 3110/2010 In the matters between (Case No. 1310/2011) ENGEN PETROLEUM LIMITED Plaintiff and VLOK PETROLEUM CC Defendant
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN THE STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LTD JAKOBIE ALBERTINA HERSELMAN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN In the matter between: Case number: 328/2015 THE STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LTD Plaintiff And JAKOBIE ALBERTINA HERSELMAN Defendant
More informationNADARAJ NARAINSAMY PERUMAL APPLICANT J G BAYETT FIRST RESPONDENT AUCTION ALLIANCE KZN (PTY) LTD SECOND RESPONDENT JUDGMENT
IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, DURBAN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA CASE NO.: 14337/2007 In the matter between NADARAJ NARAINSAMY PERUMAL APPLICANT and J G BAYETT FIRST RESPONDENT AUCTION ALLIANCE KZN (PTY)
More information1. This matter came before me as an application in terms of section 165 of the Labour
166336IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT CAPE TOWN CASE NUMBER: C146/97 In the matter between: UNICAB TAXIS (PTY) LTD APPLICANT and ANDRIES KAMMIES RESPONDENT JUDGMENT FABER AJ 1. This matter
More informationTHE LAW RELATING TO GUARANTEES
THE LAW RELATING TO GUARANTEES ISBN 978-983-3519-16-3 Author: Nasser Hamid Binding: Softcover / 938 pages Publication Price: MYR 290.00 The law is stated as of March 31, 2009 CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE GUARANTEES
More informationLEARNING UNIT 2: THE LAW OF CONTRACT
LEARNING UNIT 2: THE LAW OF CONTRACT OBJECTIVES: Describe the essentials of a valid contract Explain the difference between a valid, void and voidable contract Explain the contractual capacity of minors
More informationRepublic of South Africa IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN) MR VIDEO (PTY) LTD...Applicant / Respondent
Republic of South Africa IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN) In the matter between: CASE NO: 18783/2011 MR VIDEO (PTY) LTD...Applicant / Respondent and BROADWAY DVD CITY
More informationTACTICAL REACTION SERVICES CC...Plaintiff. BEVERLEY ESTATE II HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION...Defendant J U D G M E N T
REPORTABLE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 2007/16441 DATE: 05/11/2010 In the matter between: TACTICAL REACTION SERVICES CC...Plaintiff and BEVERLEY ESTATE II HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION...Defendant
More informationCONTRACT LAW. Elements of a Contract
CONTRACT LAW Contracts: Types and Sources in Australia CONTRACT: An agreement concerning promises made between two or more parties with the intention of creating certain legal rights and obligations upon
More informationTHIRD PARTY FRAUD INDUCING MATERIAL MISTAKE SLIP KNOT INVESTMENTS 777 (PTY) LTD V DU TOIT SA 72 (SCA)
THIRD PARTY FRAUD INDUCING MATERIAL MISTAKE SLIP KNOT INVESTMENTS 777 (PTY) LTD V DU TOIT 2011 4 SA 72 (SCA) C-J Pretorius * 1 Introduction A problem that has perplexed the courts for some time, and to
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN SIMCHA PROPERTIES 12 CC ZAGEY: STEPHAN SCHNEIDER: AUBREY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN In the matter between:- NEDBANK LTD Case No: 341/2014 Plaintiff and SIMCHA PROPERTIES 12 CC 1 st Defendant ZAGEY: STEPHAN 2 nd Defendant
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE PORT ELIZABETH) CASE NO.: 1316/13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE PORT ELIZABETH) CASE NO.: 1316/13 In the matter between: BAYVIEW CONSTRUCTION (PTY) LIMITED Plaintiff/Applicant And ELDORADO TRADING CC JOHN PULLEN First
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) In the matter between: Case No: 12189/2014 ABSA BANK LIMITED Applicant And RUTH SUSAN HAREMZA Respondent
More informationMAKING INFORMAL VERBAL AGREEMENTS WITH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS
MONTHLY NEWSLETTE ISSUE 04 MAKING INFOMAL VEBAL AGEEMENTS WITH HOMEOWNES ASSOCIATIONS Many homeowners associations have strict requirements concerning the aesthetic appearance of buildings on the estate.
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA) NOT REPORTABLE CASE NO: 26952/09 DATE: 11/06/2009 In the matter between: TIMOTHY DAVID DAVENPORT PHILIP Applicant and TUTOR TRUST
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT MARK WILLIAM LYNN NO FIRST APPELLANT TINTSWALO ANNAH NANA MAKHUBELE NO SECOND APPELLANT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case No: 687/10 In the matter between: MARK WILLIAM LYNN NO FIRST APPELLANT TINTSWALO ANNAH NANA MAKHUBELE NO SECOND APPELLANT and COLIN HENRY COREEJES
More informationDAIMLERCHRYSLER SERVICES SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD And RAPHAKANE DAVID MABOGOANE JUDGMENT
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG,
More informationEXCLUSIVE ACCESS TRADING 73 (PTY) LTD JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE HIGH COURT GRAHAMSTOWN) In the matter between: CASE NO: 3829/2009 DATE HEARD: 28/02/2011 DATE DELIVERED: 01/03/2011 EXCLUSIVE ACCESS TRADING 73 (PTY) LTD
More informationRepublic of South Africa IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN) JUDGMENT DELIVERED : 3 NOVEMBER 2009
Republic of South Africa REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN) CASE No: A 178/09 In the matter between: CHRISTOPHER JAMES BLAIR HUBBARD and GERT MOSTERT Appellant/Defendant
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Reportable
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Reportable In the matter between: Case no: 288/2017 OCEAN ECHO PROPERTIES 327 CC FIRST APPELLANT ANGELO GIANNAROS SECOND APPELLANT and OLD MUTUAL LIFE
More informationOVERVIEW OF CONTRACT LAW
OVERVIEW OF CONTRACT LAW Liability is generally the key issue in regards to contractual disputes. Purpose of K law is to provide the rules which determine when one party is liable to another under or in
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
Circulate to Magistrates: Yes / No Reportable: Yes / No Circulate to Judges: Yes / No IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (Northern Cape Division) Date heard: 2005 11 25 Date delivered: 2005 12 02 Case no:
More informationALERT BANKING LAW UPDATE 28 FEBRUARY 2014 IN THIS ISSUE SECTION 129 OF THE NATIONAL CREDIT ACT REVISITED
ALERT 28 FEBRUARY 2014 BANKING LAW UPDATE IN THIS ISSUE SECTION 129 OF THE NATIONAL CREDIT ACT REVISITED The Constitutional Court of South Africa delivered a judgment on 20 February 2014 in the matter
More informationMARK SCHEME for the May/June 2007 question paper 9084 LAW
UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL EXAMINATIONS GCE Advanced Level MARK SCHEME for the May/June 2007 question paper 9084 LAW 9084/03 Paper 3, maximum raw mark 75 This mark scheme is published as an
More informationThis question requires candidates to explain what is meant by the doctrine of judicial precedent.
Answers Fundamentals Level Skills Module, Paper F4 (BWA) Corporate and Business Law (Botswana) December 2013 Answers 1 (a) This question requires candidates to explain what is meant by case law. Case law
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. AAA INVESTMENTS PROPRIETARY LIMITED Applicant. PETER MARK HUGO NO First Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NOT REPORTABLE EASTERN CAPE, GRAHAMSTOWN Case No.: 2088/10 & 2089/10 Date Heard: 19 August 2010 Date Delivered:16 September 2010 In the matters between: AAA INVESTMENTS
More informationRESCISSION 1. Seminar, College of Law, Sydney, 10 March Edmund Finnane 2
RESCISSION 1 Seminar, College of Law, Sydney, 10 March 2009 Edmund Finnane 2 1 RESCISSION - AT LAW AND IN EQUITY The term rescission is used in various senses, but in its narrow sense the term is concerned
More informationNORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG ABSA TECHNOLOGY FINANCE SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD LAM-MED HEALTH CC LAMEESE LAKHI JUDGMENT
NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG CASE NO.: 303/2009 In the matter between:- ABSA TECHNOLOGY FINANCE SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD Plaintiff and LAM-MED HEALTH CC LAMEESE LAKHI 1 st Defendant 2 nd Defendant JUDGMENT
More informationFILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 04/21/ :00 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 88 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 04/21/2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS ASTORIA 48 TH STREET CAPITAL, INC., INDEX NO. 504376/2015 Plaintiff, ANSWER TO AMENDED -against- COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIMS OP EQUITIES, LLC AND
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
J/ 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE (1) REPORTABLE: 'IW/NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: '111!6/NO :~TE: REVISED... ~... L~...1..~.?.~.E
More informationJUDGMENT DELIVERED 08 SEPTEMBER 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) Reportable Case no. 6802/2013 In the matter between: JOHAN DURR Excipient /Plaintiff and LE NOE NEELS BARNARDT CHARLES DICKINSON First
More informationMASILONYANA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY LEJWELEPUTSWA DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN Reportable: YES/NO Of Interest to other Judges: YES/NO Circulate to Magistrates: YES/NO In the matter between: Case number: 2770/2017
More informationDefine genuine agreement and rescission. Identify when duress occurs. Describe how someone may exercise undue influence.
Define genuine agreement and rescission Identify when duress occurs Describe how someone may exercise undue influence. Genuine Agreement/Assent: meeting of the minds Must be willful and voluntary Must
More informationGenuineness of Assent
Genuineness of Assent A party who demonstrates that she did not genuinely assent to the terms of a contract may avoid an otherwise valid contract. Genuine assent may be lacking due to mistake, fraudulent
More informationTHE EFFECT OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 68 OF 2008 ON EXEMPTION CLAUSES IN STANDARD- FORM CONTRACTS
THE EFFECT OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 68 OF 2008 ON EXEMPTION CLAUSES IN STANDARD- FORM CONTRACTS BY THANDI SHERLOTE NKABINDE Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree LLM
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: JUDGMENT Not reportable Case No: 208/2015 MUTUAL & FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED FIRST APPELLANT AQUA TRANSPORT & PLANT HIRE (PTY)
More informationCHAPTER 2 CONTRACT LAWS INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, A contract is an agreement made between two or more parties which the law will enforce.
CHAPTER 2 CONTRACT LAWS INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 Definition of Contract A contract is an agreement made between two or more parties which the law will enforce. Sec 2(h) defines contract as an agreement
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Highvic Pty Ltd & Ors v Quarterback Group Pty Ltd & Anor [2012] QSC 8 HIGHVIC PTY LTD (Applicant/First Plaintiff) AND BRIAN FRANCIS GEANEY (Second Plaintiff)
More informationWESTERN SAMOA. INTERNATIONAL TRUSTS ACT 1987 (Incorporating amendments to July 1991)
WESTERN SAMOA INTERNATIONAL TRUSTS ACT 1987 (Incorporating amendments to July 1991) This document is an unofficial compilation of the International Trusts Act 1987 as amended by the International Trusts
More information[1] The applicants apply on notice of motion for the ejectment of. the respondent from an immovable property owned by them, on the
REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA DURBAN AND COAST LOCAL DIVISION CASE NO. 6090/2006 In the matter between: GOPAUL SEWPERSADH ROSHNI DEVI SEWPERSADH SECOND APPLICANT FIRST APPLICANT and SURIAPRAKASH
More informationIS A HARD-HITTING CONTRACTUAL TERM CONSTITUTIONALLY UNFAIR AND HENCE UNENFORCEABLE?
IS A HARD-HITTING CONTRACTUAL TERM CONSTITUTIONALLY UNFAIR AND HENCE UNENFORCEABLE? Mohamed's Leisure Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Southern Sun Hotel Interests (Pty) Ltd (183/17) [2017] ZASCA 176 (1 December 2017)
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA Reportable Case No 34/2000 In the matter between HANNS-CHRISTIAN HÜLSE-REUTTER SIMONE HÜLSE-REUTTER GOLDLEAF PROPERTIES LTD First Appellant Second Appellant
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN TISETSO PETRUS MOSEBO RTK ADVISORY CENTRE CC MANGAUNG METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY
In the matter between: IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN Case Number: 840/2015 TISETSO PETRUS MOSEBO RTK ADVISORY CENTRE CC 1 st Applicant 2 nd Applicant and MANGAUNG
More informationGenuine Agreement (Genuine Assent)
Chapter 7 Genuine Agreement (Genuine Assent) Business Law Ms. Turner Genuine Agreement (Genuine Assent) Agreement to enter into a contract that is evidenced by words or conduct between parties If there
More informationChinese Contract Law: A Brief Introduction. ZHANG Xuezhong. Assistant Professor of Law.
Chinese Contract Law: A Brief Introduction ZHANG Xuezhong Assistant Professor of Law zhangxuezhong@ecupl.edu.cn East China University of Politics and Law Overview 1. In General 2. Principles of Chinese
More informationIN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT. PRETORIA /ES (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA)
IN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT. PRETORIA /ES (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE (1) REPORTABLE: YES/TTO. (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YBS i WX (3) REVISED. / IN THE MATTER
More informationClass B.Com. I Sem. (Hons.)
SYLLABUS Class B.Com. I Sem. (Hons.) Subject Business Regulatory Framework UNIT I UNIT II UNIT III UNIT IV UNIT V Contract Act 1872 Definition nature of contract, offer and acceptances capacity of parties
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL LOCAL DIVISION, DURBAN AIRPORTS COMPANY SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL LOCAL DIVISION, DURBAN CASE NO: 9676/2014 In the matter between: AIRPORTS COMPANY SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED Plaintiff and MASIPHUZE TRADING (PTY) LIMITED JOHN
More informationFORM A FILING SHEET FOR EASTERN CAPE JUDGMENT TECHNOFIN LEASING & FINANCE (PTY) LTD
1 FORM A FILING SHEET FOR EASTERN CAPE JUDGMENT ECJ NO: 021/2005 TECHNOFIN LEASING & FINANCE (PTY) LTD Plaintiff and FRAMESBY HIGH SCHOOL THE MEMBER FOR THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL FOR EDUCATION, EASTERN CAPE
More information1. Consider standing 2. Consider the three elements to make out a prima facie case 3. Consider defences 4. Consider remedies
TOPIC 1 ESTABLISHING DEFAMATION 1. Consider standing 2. Consider the three elements to make out a prima facie case 3. Consider defences 4. Consider remedies INTRODUCTION The law of defamation is balanced
More informationSAMOA INTERNATIONAL TRUSTS ACT (as amended, 2005) ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I - PRELIMINARY PART II - LAWS APPLICABLE TO INTERNATIONAL TRUSTS
1. Short title and commencement 2. Interpretation 3. Application of Act SAMOA INTERNATIONAL TRUSTS ACT 1987 (as amended, 2005) ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I - PRELIMINARY PART II - LAWS APPLICABLE TO
More informationIN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAHIKENG MARTHINUS JOHANNES LAUFS DATE OF HEARING : 28 OCTOBER 2016 DATE OF JUDGMENT : 01 DECEMBER 2016
Reportable: Circulate to Judges: Circulate to Magistrates: Circulate to Regional Magistrates: YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO IN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAHIKENG In the matter between: CASE NO:
More informationABSA BANK LIMITED Plaintiff AND
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN) Case No.: 8850/2011 In the matter between: ABSA BANK LIMITED Plaintiff and ROBERT DOUGLAS MARSHALL GAVIN JOHN WHITEFORD N.O. GLORIA
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Perpetual Limited v Registrar of Titles & Ors [2013] QSC 296 PARTIES: PERPETUAL LIMITED (ACN 000 431 827) (FORMERLY KNOWN AS PERPETUAL TRUSTEES AUSTRALIA LIMITED (ACN
More informationDeed of Acknowledgement Change of Trustee
Deed of Acknowledgement Change of Trustee retiring trustee new trustee continuing trustee Date: / / Important In this deed: us, we and the bank means TSB Bank. the terms that are in bold in this deed are
More informationJUDGMENT THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 07897/2016. In the matter between: SAPOR RENTALS (PTY) LIMITED
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 07897/2016 (1) REPORTABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3) REVISED. 23 February 2017.. DATE... SIGNATURE In the matter
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
r THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT In the matter between: Not Reportable Case No: 267/13 WILLEM PHEIFFER and CORNELIUS JOHANNES VAN WYK AAGJE VAN WYK MARDE (PTY) LTD MARIUS EKSTEEN
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH, PRETORIA)
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH, PRETORIA) Case no. 16546/2010 DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE (1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO. (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: y S/NO. (3) REVISED. In
More informationASSIGNMENT SOLUTIONS GUIDE ( ) E.C.O.-5
N 1 ASSIGNMENT SOLUTIONS GUIDE (2015-2016) E.C.O.-5 Mercantile Law Disclaimer/Special Note: These are just the sample of the Answers/Solutions to some of the Questions given in the Assignments. These Sample
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 43668/2014 (1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED...... SIGNATURE
More informationSOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 2008/41609 DATE:30/08/2010 In the matter between: GEODIS WILSON SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD Plaintiff and ACA (PTY) LTD First Defendant
More informationFORM A FILING SHEET FOR EASTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, PORT ELIZABETH JUDGMENT
FORM A FILING SHEET FOR EASTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, PORT ELIZABETH JUDGMENT PARTIES: LESLIE NEIL SACKSTEIN N.O, JACOBUS HENDRIKUS JANSE VAN RENSBURG N.O AND ROMANA BERNADETTE KNUTH N.O. VS JOHANNES TOBIAS
More informationJUDGMENT. This is an exception by the plaintiff to the defendant s plea and counterclaim.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE DIVISION) NOT REPORTABLE Case No.: 6104/07 Date delivered: 16 May 2008 In the matter between: GAY BOOYSEN Plaintiff and GEOFFREY LYSTER WARREN SMITH Defendant
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG. SA SOLIDARITY obo MT BOOI & 22 OTHERS. TECHNISTRUT (PTY) LTD t/a SELATI ROOFS
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JS381/12 SA SOLIDARITY obo MT BOOI & 22 OTHERS Applicants and TECHNISTRUT (PTY) LTD t/a SELATI ROOFS Respondent Delivered: 15 July
More informationPublished on e-first 1 June AGENCY LAW
Published on e-first 1 June 2018 3. AGENCY LAW Pearlie KOH LLB (Hons) (National University of Singapore), LLM (University of Melbourne); Advocate & Solicitor (Singapore); Associate Professor, Singapore
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, MTHATHA) JUDGMENT
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, MTHATHA) CASE NO: 1559/16 In the matter between: SIBONGISENI MGADI Applicant and XOLANI CALU First Respondent TOYOTA FINANCIAL SERVICES
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case No: 211/2014 Reportable In the matter between: IAN KILBURN APPELLANT and TUNING FORK (PTY) LTD RESPONDENT Neutral citation: Kilburn v Tuning Fork
More informationCREDIT APPLICATION FORM
CREDIT APPLICATION FORM A. DETAILS OF THE APPLICANT 1. Name of Applicant: 2. Trading Name: 3. Registration No: VAT No: 4. Physical Address: (Domicilium citandi et executandi) 5. Postal Address: 6. Contact
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH) EASTERN CAPE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH) Case No. 3203/2016 In the matter between: EASTERN CAPE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Applicant and MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT, PORT
More informationDRAFT MYANMAR COMPANIES LAW TABLE OF CONTENTS
Post-Consultation Law Draft 1 DRAFT MYANMAR COMPANIES LAW TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I PRELIMINARY... 1 PART II CONSTITUTION, INCORPORATION AND POWERS OF COMPANIES... 6 Division 1: Registration of companies...
More informationContractual Remedies Act 1979
Reprint as at 1 September 2017 Contractual Remedies Act 1979 Public Act 1979 No 11 Date of assent 6 August 1979 Commencement see section 1(2) Contractual Remedies Act 1979: repealed, on 1 September 2017,
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT FIRST NATIONAL BANK A DIVISION OF FIRSTRAND BANK LIMITED
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT In the matter between: REPORTABLE Case no: 1054/2013 FIRST NATIONAL BANK A DIVISION OF FIRSTRAND BANK LIMITED APPELLANT and CLEAR CREEK TRADING 12 (PTY)
More informationMISTAKE. (1) the other party to the contract knew or should have known of the mistake; or
MISTAKE Mistake of Fact: The parties entered into a contract with different understandings of one or more material facts relating to the contract s performance. Mutual Mistake: A mistake by both contracting
More informationRepublic of South Africa IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
Republic of South Africa IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) Case no: 15493/2014 NICOLENE HANEKOM APPLICANT v LIZETTE VOIGT N.O. LIZETTE VOIGT JANENE GERTRUIDA GOOSEN N.O.
More informationREPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK. ERIKA PREUSS (born FEIL)
REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA NOT REPORTABLE HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK In the matter between: JUDGMENT Case no: I 799/2010 ARTHUR ROLF PREUSS and ERIKA PREUSS (born FEIL) PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT
More informationCHAPTER INTERNATIONAL TRUST ACT
SAINT LUCIA CHAPTER 12.19 INTERNATIONAL TRUST ACT Revised Edition Showing the law as at 31 December 2008 This is a revised edition of the law, prepared by the Law Revision Commissioner under the authority
More informationATTENTION IS DRAWN TO THE ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF CERTAIN INFORMATION (REFER PARAGRAPH [4-5]
ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO THE ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF CERTAIN INFORMATION (REFER PARAGRAPH [4-5] IN THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY WELLINGTON [2016] NZERA Wellington 158 5637953 BETWEEN AND CAROLINE
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 44105/2011 (1) REPORTABLE: YES (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES (3) REVISED. 29 Oct 2012.. (signed)... DATE SIGNATURE In the
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA. WELTMANS CUSTOM OFFICE FURNITURE Appellant
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: WELTMANS CUSTOM OFFICE FURNITURE Appellant (PTY) LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) and WHISTLERS CC Respondent CORAM : HEFER, NIENABER, SCHUTZ,
More informationIN THE LAND CLAIMS COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE LAND CLAIMS COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Held in Durban on 21 August 2006 Before Ncube AJ CASE NUMBER: LCC71R-06 Decided on: 25 August 2006 In the matter between : UMOBA FARMS (PTY) LTD Applicant and GANTSHO
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT. McCarthy v ABSA (511/08) [2009] ZASCA 118 (25 September 2009)
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case No: 511/08 In the matter between : McCARTHY LIMITED Appellant and ABSA BANK LIMITED Respondent Neutral citation: Coram: McCarthy v ABSA
More information1296. Accounting documents to be filed by non-eea company.
1294. Accounting documents to be filed by EEA company. 1295. Filing obligations of non-eea company. 1296. Accounting documents to be filed by non-eea company. 1297. Return of capital by non-eea company.
More informationReality of Consent. Reality of Consent. Reality of Consent. Chapter 13
Reality of Consent Chapter 13 Reality of Consent It is crucial to the economy and commerce that the law be counted on to enforce contracts. However, in some cases there are compelling reasons to permit
More information1.2 the enforceability of the Agreements under the laws of the Jurisdiction.
CLLS LAND LAW COMMITTEE DRAFT FORM OF OVERSEAS LEGAL OPINION ON TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO REAL PROPERTY IN ENGLAND AND WALES (FORM PRODUCED IN NOVEMBER 2012, UPDATED MAY 2018 TO REFLECT IN PARAGRAPH 5.2.1
More informationCHAPTER 8: GENUINE AGREEMENT
CHAPTER 8: GENUINE AGREEMENT GENUINE AGREEMENT AND RESCISSION A valid offer and valid acceptance generally results in an enforceable contract. If one of the parties used physical threats to acquire the
More informationFraud, Mistake and Misrepresentation
Recent Developments in European Contract Law Winter term 2007/08 Fraud, Mistake and Misrepresentation 1 Introduction: Fraud, mistake, misrepresentation When should a party be held to the contract, if he/she
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 2015/5890 (1) REPORTABLE: YES (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES (3) REVISED.... 23 May 2016 SIGNATURE In the matter
More informationJUDGMENT DELIVERED ON : 18 OCTOBER 2004
Republic of South Africa REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) CASE No: 924/2004 In the matter of NEDCOR BANK LTD Applicant and LISINFO 61 TRADING (PTY) LTD
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION) UNREPORTABLE CASE NO: A221/06 DATE: 21/05/2007 THE STATE APPELLANT V OSCAR NZIMANDE RESPONDENT JUDGMENT R D CLAASSEN J: 1 This is an appeal
More informationOFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
1 OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL LOCAL DIVISION, DURBAN CASE NO: 3394/2014 In the matter between: AIR TREATMENT ENGINEERING AND MAINTENANCE
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA REPORTABLE Case number: 29/04 In the matter between: EKKEHARD CREUTZBURG EMIL EICH Appellant 1 st Appellant 2 nd and COMMERCIAL BANK
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) In the matter between: Case No: 4826/2014 FIRSTRAND FINANCE COMPANY Applicant and EMERALD VAN ZYL Respondent
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case no: 339/09 MEC FOR SAFETY AND SECURITY Appellant (EASTERN CAPE PROVINCE) and TEMBA MTOKWANA Respondent Neutral citation: 2010) CORAM: MEC v Mtokwana
More informationSTAMP DUTIES (AMENDMENT) ACT 1987 No. 85
STAMP DUTIES (AMENDMENT) ACT 1987 No. 85 NEW SOUTH WALES 1. Short title 2. Commencement 3. Principal Act 4. Amendment of Act No. 47, 1920 5. Savings and transitional provisions TABLE OF PROVISIONS SCHEDULE
More informationIN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT MAFIKENG CASE NO.:1573/10 ERAVIN CONSTRUCTION CC. TWIN OAKS ESTATE DEVELOPMENTS (Pty) Ltd DEFENDANT
IN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT MAFIKENG CASE NO.:1573/10 In the matter between: ERAVIN CONSTRUCTION CC PLAINTIFF and TWIN OAKS ESTATE DEVELOPMENTS (Pty) Ltd DEFENDANT CIVIL MATTER KGOELE J DATE OF HEARING
More informationJUDGMENT (APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) [1] The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the judgment which I prepared
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH Case No.: 2344/2013 Date Heard: 31 March 2017 Date Delivered: 11 May 2017 In the matter between: ADELLE YVETTE POTGIETER Applicant/Defendant
More information