Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

South African Report

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Principles of BRICS Contract Law

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 102))

  • 189 Accesses

Abstract

The chapter focuses on the approach to international commercial contracts in South Africa. It first explains the features of the South African legal system that nowadays matter most in the context of international business law. It then delves into the principles and the rules applying to contract formation, validity, interpretation, contents, performance, non-performance, and limitation of claims, paying particular attention to South African statutes and common law, as well as to the contributions of legal scholarship.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See generally Forsyth (2012), 327–336; Dendy (2019), para 353.

  2. 2.

    See Representative of Lloyds v Classic Sailing Adventures (Pty) Ltd 2010 (5) SA 90 (SCA) [21]; Forsyth (2012), 327–329.

  3. 3.

    See Forsyth (2012), 330. The author points out that an alternative approach sometimes favoured by the courts is to identify the parties’ ‘imputed’ intention, but that this approach generally gives rise to similar results as the ‘most closely connected law’-approach.

  4. 4.

    See Forsyth (2012), 329–336.

  5. 5.

    See for example art 21(1) of the ICC Arbitration Rules (2012), whereby an arbitral tribunal may apply the rules of law which it determines to be appropriate, and art 35 of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (2010).

  6. 6.

    See Dendy (2019), para 353. It is unlikely that the proper law could be ‘soft law’, such as the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (see Cuniberti 2015, 168). However, parties to an international commercial contract may agree, or an arbitral tribunal may determine that the contract is (also) governed by ‘general principles of law’, the lex mercatoria, or ‘general principles of transnational law’. Guidance may then presumably be obtained from ‘soft law’ instruments.

  7. 7.

    See Forsyth (2012), 336–349; Representative of Lloyds v Classic Sailing Adventures (Pty) Ltd 2010 (5) SA 90 (SCA) [21].

  8. 8.

    Section 1 of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act 45 of 1988. On providing such proof see Maleth Investment Fund (Pty) Limited v Paget [2014] 3 All SA 79 (GJ) [28–32].

  9. 9.

    See Forsyth (2012), 14–17 on these ‘directly applicable statutes’.

  10. 10.

    Also see chapter 7 of the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act 25 of 2002 (discussed at Sect. 2.2.2).

  11. 11.

    Section 5(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008, read with section 1. The transactions must be ‘in the ordinary course of business’.

  12. 12.

    See section 5(8) of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008; De Stadler (2014a), 5–22.

  13. 13.

    See De Stadler (2014a), 5–23; Naudé (2014), reg 44–67.

  14. 14.

    Regulation 44(3)(bb) issued in terms of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (Government Notice No R 293, GG No 34180 of 1 April 2011). See Naudé (2014), reg 44–67.

  15. 15.

    See http://www.itac.org.za/home. For details of South African membership of the WTO see https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/countries_e/south_africa_e.htm.

  16. 16.

    For tables see http://www.dti.gov.za/trade_investment/ited_trade_agreement.jsp. and http://www.sars.gov.za/Legal/International-Treaties-Agreements/Trade-Agreements/Pages/default.aspx.

    In the BRICS context, the Southern African Customs Union (SACU)-Southern Common Market (Mercosur) Preferential Trade Agreement covers trade between South Africa and Brazil. According to the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) a number of donor countries, including Russia, aim to benefit beneficiary countries, which include South Africa (see https://unctad.org/en/pages/PublicationWebflyer.aspx?publicationid=2239). In 2015 South Africa and China signed a range of trade agreements, and a preferential trade agreement is being negotiated between India and the SACU.

  17. 17.

    Forsyth (2012), 123.

  18. 18.

    Forsyth (2012), 23; also see Sect. 8.

  19. 19.

    Forsyth (2012), 169.

  20. 20.

    Forsyth (2012), 217–220, 230–234, 246.

  21. 21.

    Forsyth (2012), 231.

  22. 22.

    Forsyth (2012), 218.

  23. 23.

    Forsyth (2012), 221–234 (on claims relating to money) and 235–246 (on claims relating to property).

  24. 24.

    See http://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/files/south-africa-25761.pdf.

  25. 25.

    http://www.sars.gov.za/ClientSegments/Customs-Excise/Trade-Statistics/Pages/Merchandise-Trade-Statistics.aspx.

  26. 26.

    See Sect. 3.1.1.

  27. 27.

    Bourbon-Leftley v WPK (Landbou) Bpk 1999 (1) SA 902 (C) 916.

  28. 28.

    Exceptions include contracts for the sale of land (which have to be in writing according to the Alienation of Land Act 68 of 1981), suretyship and donation.

  29. 29.

    Section 22(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008.

  30. 30.

    Oos-Vrystaat Kaap Bedryf Beperk v Van Aswegen 2005 (4) SA 417 (O).

  31. 31.

    Seeff Commercial & Industrial Properties (Pty) Ltd v Silberman 2001 (3) SA 952 (SCA).

  32. 32.

    Seeff Commercial & Industrial Properties (Pty) Ltd v Silberman 2001 (3) SA 952 (SCA).

  33. 33.

    CGEE Alsthom Equipments et Enterprises Electrique, South African Division v GKN Sankey (Pty) Ltd 1987 (1) SA 81 (A) 92E-G.

  34. 34.

    See Meskin NO v Anglo-American Corporation of SA Ltd 1968 (4) SA 793 (W) 804, which concerned duties of disclosure while negotiating.

  35. 35.

    For critical analysis see Van Huyssteen et al. (2020), 103–110.

  36. 36.

    See MV Lina, Union Shipping and Managing Co SA v Lina Maritime Ltd 1998 (4) SA 633 (N) 637H.

  37. 37.

    See Sect. 2.1.1; CGEE Alsthom Equipments et Enterprises Electrique, South African Division v GKN Sankey (Pty) Ltd 1987 (1) SA 81 (A) 92E-G.

  38. 38.

    See KPMG Chartered Accountants (SA) v Securefin Ltd 2009 (4) SA 399 (SCA) [39].

  39. 39.

    SA Sentrale Ko-op Graanmaatskappy Bpk v Shifren 1964 (4) SA 760 (A).

  40. 40.

    Brisley v Drotsky 2002 (4) SA 1 (SCA).

  41. 41.

    See Constantia Insurance Company Ltd v Compusource (Pty) Ltd 2005 (4) SA 345 (SCA).

  42. 42.

    See Quick v Goldwasser 1956 (2) SA 525 (SR) 535 and the reference there to Glynn v Margetson [1893] AC 351 (HL); Wessels (1951), para 1981.

  43. 43.

    Van Huyssteen et al. (2020), 71.

  44. 44.

    See for example Pintado Trading 800 (Pty) Ltd v Fleet Africa (Pty) Ltd [2010] JOL 25698 (KZD) 5.

  45. 45.

    Hutchison and Pretorius (2017), 411. For examples see Oakdene Square Properties (Pty) Ltd v Farm Bothasfontein (Kyalami) (Pty) Ltd 2013 (4) SA 539 (SCA); Registrar of Medical Schemes v Suremed Medical Scheme 2012 (2) SA 512 (SCA); Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Capstone 556 (Pty) Ltd [2016] 2 All SA 21 (SCA).

  46. 46.

    See Horn v LA Health Medical Scheme 2015 (7) BCLR 780 (CC) [19]; Bavasah v Stirton [2014] 2 All SA 51 (WCC) [4].

  47. 47.

    See Peel v Hamon J & C Engineering (Pty) Ltd 2013 (2) SA 331 (GSJ) [11].

  48. 48.

    Mpumelelo Projects Construction CC v Sasol Wax (Pty) Ltd [2014] JOL 31764 (FB) [42]; see generally Sect. 2.2.1 (iv) below on the validity of an agreement to negotiate further.

  49. 49.

    See Nedbank Ltd v Petch Manufacturing (Pty) Ltd [2008] JOL 21319 (W) [13].

  50. 50.

    See Mpumelelo Projects Construction CC v Sasol Wax (Pty) Limited [2014] JOL 31764 (FB) [40]; Nuclear Fuels Corporation of SA (Pty) Ltd v Orda AG 1996 (4) SA 1190 (SCA) 1198.

  51. 51.

    See for example FJ Mitrie (Pty) Ltd v Madgwick 1979 (1) SA 232 (D).

  52. 52.

    See McWilliams v First Consolidated Holdings (Pty) Ltd 1982 (2) SA 1 (A).

  53. 53.

    See MV Navigator (No. 1): Wellness International Network Ltd v MV Navigator 2004 (5) SA 10 (C).

  54. 54.

    See the example in Dijkstra v Janowsky 1985 (3) SA 560 (C) 562–563.

  55. 55.

    See Bourbon-Leftley v WPK (Landbou) Bpk 1999 (1) SA 902 (C) 922–923.

  56. 56.

    See the examples in Leiserowitz v Grylls 1984 (2) SA 834 (C) 835, 843.

  57. 57.

    See City of Johannesburg Municipal Pension Fund v City of Johannesburg [2005] JOL 15426 (W) [51–61].

  58. 58.

    See Ikamva Architects CC v Coega Development Corporation [2015] JOL 34289 (ECG) [4, 11, 22] (there the document identified parties to the negotiations and contained certain indemnifications). It is apparently not uncommon in state tender processes to require a letter of intent.

  59. 59.

    See KIA Intertrade Johannesburg (Pty) Ltd v Infinite Motors (Pty) Ltd [1999] 2 All SA 268 (W) 276; see generally Sect. 2.2.1 (iv) below on the validity of an agreement to negotiate further.

  60. 60.

    See Chevron South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Awaiz at 110 Drakensburg CC [2008] 1 All SA 557 (T).

  61. 61.

    See Philotex (Pty) Ltd v Snyman 1998 (2) SA 138 (SCA) 155–156 and compare Consolidated News Agencies (Pty) Ltd (in Liquidation) v Mobile Telephone Networks (Pty) Ltd 2010 (3) SA 382 (SCA) [12].

  62. 62.

    Hunt v Liebherr-Africa Managed Pension Plan and Another (2) [2002] 1 BPLR 2955 (PFA) [15].

  63. 63.

    See Southernport Developments (Pty) Ltd v Transnet Ltd 2005 (2) SA 202 (SCA).

  64. 64.

    See Everfresh Market Virginia (Pty) Ltd v Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd 2012 (1) SA 256 (CC).

  65. 65.

    Section 4(1) of the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act 25 of 2002. A ‘data message’ in turn means ‘data generated, sent, received or stored by electronic means …’, where ‘data' is defined as ‘electronic representations of information in any form’.

  66. 66.

    Section 3 of the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act 25 of 2002. For rulings by the Consumer Goods and Services Ombud on the interaction between the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act 25 of 2002 and the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 see http://www.cgso.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Advisory-Note-ECT-Act-v5pdf.pdf?87ab66.

  67. 67.

    Section 22(2) of the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act 25 of 2002.

  68. 68.

    Section 23(b) of the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act 25 of 2002.

  69. 69.

    See Sect. 2.1.1; Oos-Vrystaat Kaap Bedryf Bpk v Van Aswegen 2005 (4) SA 417 (O).

  70. 70.

    Section 20 of the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act 25 of 2002.

  71. 71.

    See Spring Forest Trading CC v Wilberry (Pty) Ltd t/a Ecowash 2015 (2) SA 118 (SCA) [2] read with [17], which refers to section 12(a) of the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act 25 of 2002. Also see Hutchison and Pretorius (2017), 168.

  72. 72.

    See section 4(3) of the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act 25 of 2002, and the reference to Schedule 1.

  73. 73.

    Spring Forest Trading CC v Wilberry (Pty) Ltd t/a Ecowash 2015 (2) SA 118 (SCA) [23–29].

  74. 74.

    Section 47 of the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act 25 of 2002.

  75. 75.

    Section 48 of the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act 25 of 2002.

  76. 76.

    Section 43(1)(i) of the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act 25 of 2002, read with section 43(3). Transactions covered by Chapter 7 are excluded from the operation of section 33 of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008, which imposes duties of disclosure in cases of ‘catalogue marketing’, when consumer agreements are not entered into in person, and consumers therefore cannot inspect the goods prior to entering into an agreement.

  77. 77.

    However, this right is subject to some notable exceptions (see section 44(2) of the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act 25 of 2002); these include financial services, certain goods intended for everyday consumption, goods made to specifications, or goods which are inherently unreturnable. On the question whether all the elements of the transaction have to be electronically concluded see Van Zyl and De Stadler (2017), 16–4.

  78. 78.

    See section 16 of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008.

  79. 79.

    Section 46(1) and (2) of the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act 25 of 2002.

  80. 80.

    Hutchison and Pretorius (2017), 13–14.

  81. 81.

    Conradie v Rossouw 1919 AD 279.

  82. 82.

    See Wilson v Smith 1956 (1) SA 393 (W).

  83. 83.

    See Wilson v Smith 1956 (1) SA 393 (W), where it was illegal to sub-divide the property that was sold, yet the case was dealt with as one of initial impossibility.

  84. 84.

    A party who seeks to enforce a contract would in turn deny that the requirements of a material and reasonable mistake are met, or would rely on the doctrine of quasi-mutual assent or Smith v Hughes principle, which essentially allow a party to establish liability where the other party has created a reasonable reliance of being bound to the contract.

  85. 85.

    See Hutchison and Pretorius (2017), 147; Extel Industrial (Pty) Ltd v Crown Mills (Pty) Ltd 1999 (2) SA 719 (SCA).

  86. 86.

    See BOE Bank Bpk v Van Zyl 2002 (5) SA 165 (C) [36].

  87. 87.

    Medscheme Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Bhamjee 2005 (5) SA 339 (SCA) [39].

  88. 88.

    See Gerolomou Constructions (Pty) Ltd v Van Wyk 2011 (4) SA 500 (GNP) [24].

  89. 89.

    Preller v Jordaan 1956 (1) SA 483 (A).

  90. 90.

    See Du Plessis (2019), 40-1–40-19.

  91. 91.

    Forsyth (2012), 344 (especially n 172).

  92. 92.

    Dendy (2019), para 362.

  93. 93.

    Forsyth (2012), 344. On the general principles relating to the application of the lex fori further see Representative of Lloyds v Classic Sailing Adventures (Pty) Ltd 2010 (5) SA 90 (SCA) [21] sqq.

  94. 94.

    Dendy (2019), para 362.

  95. 95.

    See for example Nuclear Fuels Corporation of South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Orda AG 1996 (4) SA 1190 (SCA), where the relevant legislation (section 49(1) of the Nuclear Energy Act 92 of 1982) provided that, ‘except with the written authority of the Minister, no person shall … import any source material into or export it from the Republic’. It was clear that the permission had to be obtained by the person seeking to export such materials from South Africa.

  96. 96.

    See Nuclear Fuels Corporation of South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Orda AG 1996 (4) SA 1190 (SCA) 1208, 1210D.

  97. 97.

    See Scott v Poupard 1971 (2) SA 373 (A), where the one party deliberately withdrew from negotiations with the State that were essential for the operation of the agreement with the other party.

  98. 98.

    See Nuclear Fuels Corporation of South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Orda AG 1996 (4) SA 1190 (SCA) 1205.

  99. 99.

    See Nuclear Fuels Corporation of South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Orda AG 1996 (4) SA 1190 (SCA) 1205.

  100. 100.

    See Bradfield (2016), 444–445. For a statutory prohibition see for example section 1(1)(a) of the Corruption Act 94 of 1992.

  101. 101.

    See Basson v Chilwan 1993 (3) SA 742 (A) 767–768.

  102. 102.

    See Magna Alloys and Research (SA) (Pty) Ltd v Ellis 1984 (4) SA 874 (A). There has been considerable debate on whether the burden of proof should be on the party seeking enforcement, but there are no compelling grounds for such an exceptional reversal of the onus in these cases; the general position prevails that the party seeking to invalidate an ostensibly valid contract bears the burden of proof with regard to the ground for invalidity; see Du Plessis (2015), 664.

  103. 103.

    It has been held that even if a covenant is reasonable between the parties, it could still violate public policy for a reason not particularly related to them. However, it is doubtful what such a reason could be (see Hutchison and Pretorius 2017, 208–209).

  104. 104.

    Experian South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Haynes 2013 (1) SA 135 (GSJ) [17.1].

  105. 105.

    Basson v Chilwan 1993 (3) SA 742 (A) 771.

  106. 106.

    Experian South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Haynes 2013 (1) SA 135 (GSJ) [19]. For examples of protectable confidential information see Dickinson Holdings (Group) (Pty) Ltd v Du Plessis 2008 (4) SA 214 (N) [33].

  107. 107.

    See Magna Alloys and Research (SA) (Pty) Ltd v Ellis 1984 (4) SA 874 (A) 898.

  108. 108.

    Basson v Chilwan 1993 (3) SA 742 (A) 768.

  109. 109.

    See Chemsearch (SA) (Pty) Ltd v Borrowman 1979 (3) SA 1092 (T) 1116D-G; Den Braven SA (Pty) Ltd v Pillay 2008 (6) SA 229 (D) [45].

  110. 110.

    Sasfin (Pty) Ltd v Beukes 1989 (1) SA 1 (A) 18G.

  111. 111.

    Vogel NO v Volkersz 1977 (1) SA 537 (T) 548F; Sasfin (Pty) Ltd v Beukes 1989 (1) SA 1 (A) 16A; Citibank NA v Thandroyen Fruit Wholesalers CC 2007 (6) SA 110 (SCA) [11].

  112. 112.

    Sasfin (Pty) Ltd v Beukes 1989 (1) SA 1 (A) 16E; Advtech Resourcing (Pty) Ltd t/a Communicate Personnel Group v Kuhn 2008 (2) SA 375 (C) [43].

  113. 113.

    See Benlou Properties (Pty) Ltd v Vector Graphics (Pty) Ltd 1993 (1) SA 179 (A) 189J–190A.

  114. 114.

    Senwes Ltd v Muller 2002 (4) SA 134 (T) 143; Cameron v Bray Gibb & Co (Pvt) Ltd 1966 (3) SA 675 (R) 677; also see Benlou Properties (Pty) Ltd v Vector Graphics (Pty) Ltd 1993 (1) SA 179 (A) 189J–190A.

  115. 115.

    See Afrisure CC v Watson NO 2009 (2) SA 127 (SCA) [35]; Citibank NA v Thandroyen Fruit Wholesalers CC 2007 (6) SA 110 (SCA) [12]; Benlou Properties (Pty) Ltd v Vector Graphics (Pty) Ltd 1993 (1) SA 179 (A) 190A.

  116. 116.

    See Pangbourne Properties Ltd v Nitor Construction (Pty) Ltd 1993 (4) SA 206 (W) 227C.

  117. 117.

    See Middleton v Carr 1949 (2) SA 374 (A) 391.

  118. 118.

    See Benlou Properties (Pty) Ltd v Vector Graphics (Pty) Ltd 1993 (1) SA 179 (A) 189I-J.

  119. 119.

    See Lubbe and Murray (1988), 287–288.

  120. 120.

    See Jonker v Yzelle 1948 (2) SA 942 (T) 944.

  121. 121.

    See Benlou Properties (Pty) Ltd v Vector Graphics (Pty) Ltd 1993 (1) SA 179 (A) 189, which refers to grammatical and notional severability.

  122. 122.

    See for example Cinema City (Pty) Ltd v Morgenstern Family Estates (Pty) Ltd 1980 (1) SA 796 (A) 804C; Rand Rietfontein Estates Ltd v Cohn 1937 AD 317, 326; Lubbe and Murray (1988), 451. If no actual common intention can be established according to this approach, courts necessarily engage in ‘objective’ interpretation (idem 463).

  123. 123.

    The ‘interpretation leg’ of this rule governs the interpretation of the terms. The rule further has an ‘integration leg’, which determines what the terms are (i.e. it defines the content, rather than meaning of the contract). The ‘integration leg’ states that when a contract has been reduced to writing and forms an ‘integration’, no extrinsic evidence may be given to contradict, alter, add to or vary the written terms. The rule in effect protects a document that appears complete on the face of it, by preventing courts from considering evidence to the contrary. See Sect. 2.1.3

  124. 124.

    See Natal Joint Municipal Pension Fund v Endumeni Municipality 2012 (4) SA 593 (SCA).

  125. 125.

    See Bothma-Batho Transport (Edms) Bpk v S Bothma & Seun Transport (Edms) Bpk 2014 (2) SA 494 (SCA) [12].

  126. 126.

    Senwes v Van der Merwe 2012 ZASCA 192 (30-11-2012) [12, 17].

  127. 127.

    See Sentinel Mining Industry Retirement Fund v Waz Properties (Pty) Ltd 2013 (3) SA 132 (SCA) [10].

  128. 128.

    Subject to the integration leg of the parol evidence rule (discussed above), which would not allow such documents to contradict a document that appears to be an integration (see Telcordia Technologies Inc v Telkom SA Ltd 2007 (3) SA 266 (SCA) [115]).

  129. 129.

    Potgieter v Potgieter NO 2012 (1) SA 637 (SCA) [24].

  130. 130.

    See Ekurhuleni Metro Municipality v Germiston Municipal Retirement Fund 2010 (2) SA 498 (SCA) [13].

  131. 131.

    According to the principle of ut res magis valeat quam pereat (see McCullogh v Fernwood Estate Ltd 1920 AD 204, 209)

  132. 132.

    At least in cases of ambiguity—see South African Forestry Co Ltd v York Timbers Ltd 2005 (3) SA 323 (SCA) [32].

  133. 133.

    On these ‘tertiary rules’ or ‘guidelines’ of interpretation see Van Huyssteen et al. (2020), 358.

  134. 134.

    Cairns (Pty) Ltd v Playdon & Co Ltd 1948 (3) SA 99 (A) 122.

  135. 135.

    Cairns (Pty) Ltd v Playdon & Co Ltd 1948 (3) SA 99 (A) 122–123. The contra proferentem rule apparently overrides the quod minimum rule.

  136. 136.

    See Alfred McAlpine & Son (Pty) Ltd v Transvaal Provincial Administration 1974 (3) SA 506 (A) 532 (although, as indicated, the usage of ‘implied term’ and ‘tacit term’ is not consistent); Wilkins NO v Voges 1994 (3) SA 130 (A).

  137. 137.

    Maphango v Aengus Lifestyle Properties (Pty) Ltd 2011 (5) SA 19 (SCA) [17].

  138. 138.

    City of Cape Town (CMC Administration) v Bourbon-Leftley and another NNO 2006 (3) SA 488 (SCA) [19].

  139. 139.

    Alfred McAlpine & Son (Pty) Ltd v Transvaal Provincial Administration 1974 (3) SA 506 (A) 532.

  140. 140.

    A Becker & Co (Pty) Ltd v Becker 1981 (3) SA 406 (A) 419.

  141. 141.

    South African Forestry Co Ltd v York Timbers Ltd 2005 (3) SA 323 (SCA) [28].

  142. 142.

    Alfred McAlpine & Son (Pty) Ltd v Transvaal Provincial Administration 1974 (3) SA 506 (A) 531G.

  143. 143.

    See Bradfield (2016), 190–196.

  144. 144.

    Exemption clauses relating to breach or non-performance are dealt with at Sect. 7.2.1.

  145. 145.

    See for example Zhongji Development Construction Engineering Co Ltd v Kamoto Copper Co 2015 (1) SA 345 (SCA) [46].

  146. 146.

    See for example Durban's Water Wonderland (Pty) Ltd v Botha 1999 (1) SA 982 (SCA) 988, where the court did not decide on particular version of standard terms presented in both English and Afrikaans. However, if only one version is brought to the attention of the court, it would presumably not be obliged to require the other version to be brought to its intention as well (compare Wittmann v Deutscher Schulverein, Pretoria 1998 (4) SA 423 (T) 436).

  147. 147.

    See Meyer v Hessling 1992 (3) SA 851 (NmS), where an agreed translation was provided of a contract originally drafted in German.

  148. 148.

    Polysius (Pty) Ltd v Transvaal Alloys (Pty) Ltd 1983 (2) SA 630 (W) 642.

  149. 149.

    Polysius (Pty) Ltd v Transvaal Alloys (Pty) Ltd 1983 (2) SA 630 (W) 643. There the court decided that it would be more convenient for a (foreign) tribunal with knowledge of German to apply South African law, than for a South African court with no knowledge of German to determine the relevant South African law.

  150. 150.

    Act 34 of 2005; see section 63.

  151. 151.

    Section 22(2) of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008.

  152. 152.

    See Stoop (2019), 22-13–22-17.

  153. 153.

    See Du Plessis (2014), 40-28, 40-34–40-45.

  154. 154.

    See Bradfield (2016), 251.

  155. 155.

    Woodburn Mansions (Pty) Ltd v Dowell 1961 (3) SA 893 (N) 899C-D; Du Plooy v Sasol Bedryf (Edms) Bpk 1988 (1) SA 438 (A) 454D; Netherlands Bank of South Africa v Stern NO 1955 (1) SA 667 (W) 670.

  156. 156.

    Netherlands Bank of South Africa v Stern NO 1955 (1) SA 667 (W) 670C.

  157. 157.

    Woodburn Mansions (Pty) Ltd v Dowell 1961 (3) SA 893 (N) 899C-D.

  158. 158.

    Netherlands Bank of South Africa v Stern NO 1955 (1) SA 667 (W) 670C-D.

  159. 159.

    For example, a contract with a bank could contain a clause stating that ‘(t)he bank hereby notifies its customers that while it will exercise every reasonable care, it is not liable for any loss or damage caused to any article lodged with it for safe custody … whether the loss or damage is due to the bank’s negligence or not’ (see First National Bank of SA Ltd v Rosenblum 2001 (4) SA 189 (SCA) [3]).

  160. 160.

    Consol Ltd t/a Consol Glass v Twee Jonge Gezellen (Pty) Ltd 2005 (6) SA 1 (SCA) [13].

  161. 161.

    Consol Ltd t/a Consol Glass v Twee Jonge Gezellen (Pty) Ltd 2005 (6) SA 1 (SCA) [15]; Elgin Brown & Hamer (Pty) Ltd v Industrial Machinery Suppliers (Pty) Ltd 1993 (3) SA 424 (A) 429.

  162. 162.

    Consol Ltd t/a Consol Glass v Twee Jonge Gezellen (Pty) Ltd 2005 (6) SA 1 (SCA) [15].

  163. 163.

    See Elgin Brown & Hamer (Pty) Ltd v Industrial Machinery Suppliers (Pty) Ltd 1993 (3) SA 424 (A) 429C.

  164. 164.

    Martin Harris & Seuns OVS (Edms) Bpk v Qwa Qwa Regeringsdiens 2000 (3) SA 339 (SCA) [16].

  165. 165.

    Interference with performance could amount to breach (see Sect. 7.1.1).

  166. 166.

    See Silent Pond Investments CC v Woolworths (Pty) Ltd 2011 (6) SA 343 (D).

  167. 167.

    Ranch International Pipelines (Tvl) (Pty) Ltd v LMG Construction (City) (Pty) Ltd 1984 (3) SA 861 (W) 879.

  168. 168.

    For a rare reference to this distinction, in the context of the agreement to negotiate further, see Van Huyssteen et al. (2020), 268 n 51.

  169. 169.

    Section 54(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008.

  170. 170.

    Section 55(2) of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008.

  171. 171.

    Chamotte (Pty) Ltd v Carl Coetzee (Pty) Ltd 1973 (1) SA 644 (A) 649; Compagnie Interafricaine De Travaux v SA Transport Services 1991 (4) SA 217 (A) 236.

  172. 172.

    NBS Boland Bank Ltd v One Berg River Drive 1999 (4) SA 928 (SCA).

  173. 173.

    See Van Huyssteen et al. (2020), 272–273, where it is suggested that the courts would reconsider the issue ‘perhaps on the basis of construing the reference to a reasonable price or rental as one incorporating the current or market price of the subject matter of the contract’.

  174. 174.

    NBS Boland Bank Ltd v One Berg River Drive 1999 (4) SA 928 (SCA) left open whether such a discretion could exist to determine a purchase price or rental.

  175. 175.

    Plaaskem (Pty) Ltd v Nippon Africa Chemicals (Pty) Ltd 2014 (5) SA 287 (SCA) [11].

  176. 176.

    See Plaaskem (Pty) Ltd v Nippon Africa Chemicals (Pty) Ltd 2014 (5) SA 287 (SCA) [26], where it was held that such a finding is unlikely, in the absence of an express provision to this effect. It is not clear whether a presumption exists against perpetuity (Putco Ltd v TV & Radio Guarantee Co (Pty) Ltd & Other Related Cases 1985 (4) SA 809 (A) 827–828 possibly supports such a position).

  177. 177.

    See Plaaskem (Pty) Ltd v Nippon Africa Chemicals (Pty) Ltd 2014 (5) SA 287 (SCA).

  178. 178.

    Amalgamated Beverage Industries Ltd v Rond Vista Wholesalers 2004 (1) SA 538 (SCA) [13].

  179. 179.

    See regulation 44(3)(l) issued in terms of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (Government Notice No R 293, GG No 34180 of 1 April 2011).

  180. 180.

    See Command Protection Services (Gauteng) (Pty) Ltd t/a Maxi Security v South African Post Office Ltd 2013 (2) SA 133 (SCA) [10].

  181. 181.

    Paradyskloof Golf Estate (Pty) Ltd v Stellenbosch Municipality 2011 (2) SA 525 (SCA) [17].

  182. 182.

    See Amoretti v Tuckers Land and Development Corporation (Pty) Ltd 1980 (2) SA 330 (W), 332–333.

  183. 183.

    See Van Huyssteen et al. (2020), 341.

  184. 184.

    See Scott v Poupard (1971) (2) SA 373 (A) 378H.

  185. 185.

    See Protea Property Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Boundary Financing Ltd (formerly known as International Bank of Southern Africa Ltd) 2008 (3) SA 33 (C) [39].

  186. 186.

    Bradfield (2016), 183–184.

  187. 187.

    Hutchison and Pretorius (2017), 217; Lubbe and Murray (1988), 427.

  188. 188.

    Van Huyssteen et al. (2020), 343.

  189. 189.

    The definition therefore does not cover a so-called ‘warranty’ whereby the liability is limited, rather than expanded (for example some manufacturers’ warranties, which restrict the period for which liability for defects could be incurred)—see Lubbe and Murray (1988), 428.

  190. 190.

    Minister van Landbou-Tegniese Dienste v Scholtz 1971 (3) SA 188 (A).

  191. 191.

    If a seller makes ‘a material statement to the buyer during the negotiations bearing on the quality of the res vendita and going beyond mere praise and commendation’ (a dictum et promissum), the purchaser may claim that the contract price be reduced, or be returned; this liability arises from the Aedilitian actions of the law of sale, and is not based on breach of a warranty. See Phame v Paizes (Pty) Ltd 1973 (3) SA 397 (A) 418A.

  192. 192.

    Hutchison and Pretorius (2017), 122 (pointing out that warranties could also arise because consensus is deemed to exist on objective grounds—see Sect. 2.1.1).

  193. 193.

    Van Huyssteen et al. (2020), 343.

  194. 194.

    The ambit of this ‘warranty’ extends beyond the parties to producers or importers, distributors and retailers (see De Stadler 2014c, 56-2).

  195. 195.

    The ambit of these warranties is set out in specialised works on contract, sale and consumer protection (on liability for consequential losses see for example Van Huyssteen et al. 2020, 343–344; also see Sect. 7.2.4).

  196. 196.

    See for example Drifters Adventure Tours CC v Hircock 2007 (2) SA 83 (SCA); Consol Ltd t/a Consol Glass v Twee Jonge Gezellen (Pty) Ltd 2005 (6) SA 1 (SCA) [14].

  197. 197.

    On the meaning of ‘claim’ see Avondson Trust (Pty) Ltd v Wouda 1975 (2) SA 444 (T) 451.

  198. 198.

    See Masstores (Pty) Ltd v Murray & Roberts Construction (Pty) Ltd 2008 (6) SA 654 (SCA) [13]. The focus here is not on ‘indemnification clauses’, as found in insurance contracts, when an insurer undertakes to indemnify an insured against certain losses (see for example Fourie v Sentrasure Bpk 1997 (4) SA 950 (NC) 856). Liability in terms of an indemnity clause further differs from liability arising from a suretyship agreement, where the surety undertakes to the holder of the right to stand in for the performance of a principal debtor (see Leyland Finance Co Ltd v Van Rensburg 1970 (4) SA 145 (T)).

  199. 199.

    Engelbrecht v Khumalo 2016 (4) SA 564 (GP) [11].

  200. 200.

    See for example Masstores (Pty) Ltd v Murray & Roberts Construction (Pty) Ltd 2008 (6) SA 654 (SCA) [4] (although the heading ‘Indemnities’ also covered exclusionary clauses that deprived parties of claims against each other). For a further example see Pretoria Portland Cement Co Ltd v South African Railways and Harbours 1979 (2) SA 188 (T) 491.

  201. 201.

    See Masstores (Pty) Ltd v Murray & Roberts Construction (Pty) Ltd 2008 (6) SA 654 (SCA) [13].

  202. 202.

    Jonnes v Anglo-African Shipping Co 1936 Ltd 1972 (2) SA 827 (A) 837.

  203. 203.

    See regulation 44(3)(e) issued in terms of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (Government Notice No R 293, GG No 34180 of 1 April 2011).

  204. 204.

    Section 49(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008.

  205. 205.

    Mackay v Naylor 1917 TPD 533, 537–538, approved in Nel v Cloete 1972 (2) SA 150 (A) 169F-H.

  206. 206.

    See BK Tooling (Edms) Bpk v Scope Precision Engineering (Edms) Bpk 1979 (1) SA 391 (A) 434A.

  207. 207.

    See Bernitz v Euvrard 1943 AD 595, 602.

  208. 208.

    See for example Grand Mines (Pty) Ltd v Giddey NO 1999 (1) SA 960 (SCA) 965.

  209. 209.

    Section 19(2)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008. Also see section 54(1)(a), which grants the consumer a right to timely performance. Terms that grant suppliers unreasonably long periods for performance are deemed to be unfair (regulation 44(3)(p), issued in terms of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (Government Notice No R 293, GG No 34180 of 1 April 2011)).

  210. 210.

    Matador Buildings (Pty) Ltd v Harman 1971 (1) SA 287 (C).

  211. 211.

    See Bradfield (2016), 498–499.

  212. 212.

    See Van Huyssteen et al. (2020), 565.

  213. 213.

    Bradfield (2016), 499.

  214. 214.

    Matador Buildings (Pty) Ltd v Harman 1971 (1) SA 287 (C). It is unclear why the creditor should be able to reject performance if the creditor has no specific interest in receiving it at a specific place.

  215. 215.

    Section 19(2)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008.

  216. 216.

    See section 17 of the South African Reserve Bank Act 90 of 1989.

  217. 217.

    Eriksen Motors (Welkom) Ltd v Protea Motors, Warrenton 1973 (3) SA 685 (A) 693.

  218. 218.

    Bradfield (2016), 477.

  219. 219.

    Bradfield (2016), 478. The party seeking to prove that a contract is illegal due to contravention of the regulations bears the burden of proof—see Pratt v FirstRand Bank Ltd 2009 (2) SA 119 (SCA).

  220. 220.

    See Standard Chartered Bank of Canada v Nedperm Bank Ltd 1994 (4) SA 747 (A) 775.

  221. 221.

    See Van Huyssteen et al. (2020), 569–570; Bradfield (2016), 569–570.

  222. 222.

    Van Huyssteen et al. (2020), 569–570.

  223. 223.

    Pfeiffer v First National Bank of SA Ltd 1998 (3) SA 1018 (SCA) 1025I-1026E.

  224. 224.

    Van Huyssteen et al. (2020), 204.

  225. 225.

    Haynes v Kingwilliamstown Municipality 1951 (2) SA 371 (A).

  226. 226.

    See Hutchison and Pretorius (2017), 289–320 For statutory provisions dealing with non-performance of consumer contracts see for example sections 19, 54, 55 and 56 of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008.

  227. 227.

    See Hutchison and Pretorius (2017), 292; Van Huyssteen et al. (2020), 385–386.

  228. 228.

    See BK Tooling (Edms) Bpk v Scope Precision Engineering (Edms) Bpk 1979 (1) SA 391 (A).

  229. 229.

    Regulation 44(3)(m) issued in terms of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (Government Notice No R 293, GG No 34180 of 1 April 2011).

  230. 230.

    See for example Telcordia Technologies Inc v Telkom SA Ltd 2007 (3) SA 266 (SCA) [165]. Only in highly exceptional cases would performance be regarded as inherently of such a nature that it cannot be expected that it will be properly rendered the first time round.

  231. 231.

    See Lubbe (1996), 147; but see Vromolimnos (Pty) Ltd v Weichbold 1991 (2) SA 157 (C) 162.

  232. 232.

    Boland Bank Ltd v Pienaar 1988 (3) SA 618 (A) 622–623.

  233. 233.

    Sweet v Ragerguhara NO 1978 (1) SA 131 (D).

  234. 234.

    See Benson v SA Mutual Life Assurance Society 1986 (1) SA 776 (A) 781–783.

  235. 235.

    See Mink v Vryheid Coal & Iron Co 1912 NPD 182.

  236. 236.

    See sections 54(1) and 54(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008.

  237. 237.

    See sections 56(2)(a) and 56(3) of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008.

  238. 238.

    Custom Credit Corporation (Pty) Ltd v Shembe 1972 (3) SA 462 (A) 470D-F.

  239. 239.

    See Woods v Walters 1921, AD 303, 310.

  240. 240.

    Section 19(6) of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008.

  241. 241.

    Section 56(2)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008. Curiously, the right to cancel is not recognised when sub-standard services are rendered; this is probably an oversight (see De Stadler 2014b, 54–57); but the consumer may cancel under the common law (see section 2(10) of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008, which preserves common-law remedies).

  242. 242.

    The principle does not apply to certain rights that have accrued prior to cancellation, independent of the executory part of the contract (see Van Huyssteen et al. 2020, 455–459).

  243. 243.

    Case law supports not granting a right of termination to aggrieved parties who are unable to provide restitution of their own performances. However, a similar approach is not followed where a contract is terminated due to improperly obtained consent. Such an inability merely precludes claiming restitution of the other party’s performance (see Sect. 3.1.2).

  244. 244.

    See Van Huyssteen et al. (2020), 457.

  245. 245.

    See Lubbe and Murray (1988), 697. On the ‘concrete approach’ to damages, which courts sometimes apply when the general rule above is regarded as too abstract, see Hutchison and Pretorius (2017), 347, Van Huyssteen et al. (2020), 464. This approach focuses on the effect breach had on a particular component of the aggrieved party’s estate, for example on a particular asset; a loss could then be quantified by asking what greater value it would have had, were it not for the breach.

  246. 246.

    The liability for interest arises from the moment the debtor is in mora (i.e. commits breach by delay); if no rate is agreed, the default rate determined under the Prescribed Rate of Interest Act 55 of 1975 applies. This Act also determines that if the claim is not liquidated, interest runs from the date of demand, or of summons, whichever is earlier (and not from the date of judgment).

  247. 247.

    Holmdene Brickworks (Pty) Ltd v Roberts Construction Co Ltd 1977 (3) SA 670 (A) 687. The case law rather controversially supports further requiring that the parties must be taken to have agreed that liability for damages would arise in these special circumstances.

  248. 248.

    Standard Chartered Bank of Canada v Nedperm Bank Ltd 1994 (4) SA 747 (A) 774; Van Huyssteen et al. (2020), 480.

  249. 249.

    See generally Van Huyssteen et al. (2020), 344–348.

  250. 250.

    See Afrox Healthcare Bpk v Strydom 2002 (6) SA 21 (SCA) [33–36].

  251. 251.

    Hall-Thermotank Natal (Pty) Ltd v Hardman 1968 (4) SA 818 (D) 835G; but also see the criticism in Elgin Brown & Hamer (Pty) Ltd v Industrial Machinery Suppliers (Pty) Ltd 1993 (3) SA 424 (A) 430.

  252. 252.

    Freddy Hirsch Group (Pty) Ltd v Chickenland (Pty) Ltd 2011 (4) SA 276 (SCA) [23]. Compare, in this context, the test in Article 7.1.6 PICC that a party may not invoke an exemption clause if it would be ‘grossly unfair’ to do so.

  253. 253.

    See Van Huyssteen et al. (2020), 346; but the point is left open in Sasfin (Pty) Ltd v Beukes 1989 (1) SA 1 (A) 15G.

  254. 254.

    Johannesburg Country Club v Stott 2004 (5) SA 511 (SCA) [12].

  255. 255.

    Johannesburg Country Club v Stott 2004 (5) SA 511 (SCA) [12]. Further see Freddy Hirsch Group (Pty) Ltd v Chickenland (Pty) Ltd 2011 (4) SA 276 (SCA) [23], where the exemption related to the delivery of food containing prohibited substances.

  256. 256.

    Van Huyssteen et al. (2020), 346.

  257. 257.

    See Goodman Brothers (Pty) Ltd v Rennies Group Ltd 1997 (4) SA 91 (W) 103H-104G.

  258. 258.

    See Freddy Hirsch Group (Pty) Ltd v Chickenland (Pty) Ltd 2011 (4) SA 276 (SCA) [20].

  259. 259.

    Regulations 44(3)(a) and (b) issued in terms of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (Government Notice No R 293, GG No 34180 of 1 April 2011). However, a consumer’s remedies based on breach due to failure to deliver goods of a particular quality could be limited where the consumer has been expressly informed that particular goods are offered in a specific condition and the consumer further expressly agreed to accept the goods in that condition, or knowingly acted in a manner consistent with accepting goods in that condition (see s 55(6) of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008, which deals with these ‘voetstoots’ or ‘as is’ clauses).

  260. 260.

    For an example of such a clause see Consol Ltd t/a Consol Glass v Twee Jonge Gezellen (Pty) Ltd 2005 (6) SA 1 (SCA) [18].

  261. 261.

    See on the concepts generally Roy v Basson NO 2007 (5) SA 84 (C); Gassner NO v Minister of Law & Order 1995 (1) SA 322 (C) 330.

  262. 262.

    See MV Snow Crystal: Transnet Ltd t/a National Ports Authority v Owner of MV Snow Crystal 2008 (4) SA 111 (SCA) [28]; Nuclear Fuels Corporation of SA (Pty) Ltd v Orda AG 1996 (4) SA 1190 (SCA) 1205G; Van Huyssteen et al. (2020), 591–599.

  263. 263.

    Van Huyssteen et al. (2020), 594.

  264. 264.

    See Roy v Basson NO 2007 (5) SA 84 (C) 86; First National Bank of SA Ltd v Rosenblum 2001 (4) SA 189 (SCA) [10].

  265. 265.

    MV Snow Crystal: Transnet Ltd t/a National Ports Authority v Owner of MV Snow Crystal 2008 (4) SA 111 (SCA) [28], quoting Herman v Shapiro & Co 1926 TPD 367, 373.

  266. 266.

    MV Snow Crystal: Transnet Ltd t/a National Ports Authority v Owner of MV Snow Crystal 2008 (4) SA 111 (SCA) [28].

  267. 267.

    Van Huyssteen et al. (2020), 594.

  268. 268.

    Nuclear Fuels Corporation of SA (Pty) Ltd v Orda AG 1996 (4) SA 1190 (SCA) 1206–1207.

  269. 269.

    Van Huyssteen et al. (2020), 593.

  270. 270.

    World Leisure Holidays (Pty) Ltd v Georges 2002 (5) SA 531 (W) [7], stating the qualification that a creditor is entitled to treat a contract as being at an end whilst performance is temporarily impossible if ‘the foundation of the contract has been destroyed; … or where all performance is already, or would inevitably become, impossible; … or where part of the performance has become, or would inevitably be, impossible and he is not bound to accept the remaining performance’; Niemand v Okapi Investments (Edms) Bpk 1983 (4) SA 762 (T) 766.

  271. 271.

    Bradfield (2016), 548.

  272. 272.

    See section 1(1) of the Conventional Penalties Act 15 of 1962 (‘A stipulation, hereinafter referred to as a penalty stipulation, whereby it is provided that any person shall, in respect of an act or omission in conflict with a contractual obligation, be liable to pay a sum of money or to deliver or perform anything for the benefit of any other person, hereinafter referred to as a creditor, either by way of a penalty or as liquidated damages, shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be capable of being enforced in any competent court’).

  273. 273.

    Regulation 44(3)(r) issued in terms of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (Government Notice No R 293, GG No 34180 of 1 April 2011).

  274. 274.

    Everett v Marian Heights (Pty) Ltd 1970 (1) SA 198 (C) 200.

  275. 275.

    See Hutchison and Pretorius (2017), 343.

  276. 276.

    Hence, any term in a contract that purports to exclude liability for ‘consequential loss’ has to be interpreted to determine its ambit. See Adel Builders (Pty) Ltd v Thompson 1999 (1) SA 680 (SE) 685.

  277. 277.

    See Consol Ltd t/a Consol Glass v Twee Jonge Gezellen (Pty) Ltd 2002 (6) SA 256 (C) [57].

  278. 278.

    D & H Piping Systems (Pty) Ltd v Trans Hex Group Ltd 2006 (3) SA 593 (SCA) [31].

  279. 279.

    See Victoria Falls & Transvaal Power Co Ltd v Consolidated Langlaagte Mines Ltd 1915 AD 1, 22–23; Gloria’s Caterers (Pty) Ltd t/a Connoisseur Hotel v Friedman 1983 (3) SA 390 (T) 393–394; Van Huyssteen et al. (2020), 410. On the recovery of loss of profits by way of a claim for special damages see Whitfield v Phillips 1957 (3) SA 318 (A).

  280. 280.

    See Sasfin (Pty) Ltd v Jessop 1997 (1) SA 675 (W) 698; Jowell v Bramwell-Jones 2000 (3) SA 274 (SCA) [23]; Goedhals v Graaff-Reinet Municipality 1955 (3) SA 482 (C); Glaser v Millward 1949 (2) SA 853 (W) 855–856; Lubbe and Murray (1988), 605.

  281. 281.

    See De Klerk v ABSA Bank Ltd 2003 (4) SA 315 (SCA) [28], approving Allied Maples Group Ltd v Simmons & Simmons (A Firm) [1995] 1 WLR 1602 (CA). The De Klerk case dealt with a delictual claim for damages, but it is not apparent that different principles would apply, had the damages claim been contractual in nature.

  282. 282.

    See for example Whitfield v Phillips 1957 (3) SA 318 (A), where it had to be determined whether the chance of gathering profitable crops of pineapples was too remote.

  283. 283.

    De Klerk v ABSA Bank Ltd 2003 (4) SA 315 (SCA) [28, 29].

  284. 284.

    De Klerk v ABSA Bank Ltd 2003 (4) SA 315 (SCA) [29].

  285. 285.

    Common-law rules not in conflict with the Prescription Act 68 of 1969, as well as earlier legislation dealing with debts that arose before 1 December 1970, remain in force, but these provisions are of limited practical application.

  286. 286.

    Desai NO v Desai 1996 (1) SA 141 (A) 146.

  287. 287.

    Makate v Vodacom Ltd 2016 (4) SA 121 (CC) [92, 93].

  288. 288.

    See De Jager v ABSA Bank Bpk 2001 (3) SA 537 (SCA) [16], where the Supreme Court of Appeal expressly left the matter open.

  289. 289.

    See Regulation 44(3)(f) issued in terms of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (Government Notice No R 293, GG No 34180 of 1 April 2011).

  290. 290.

    De Jager v ABSA Bank Bpk 2001 (3) SA 537 (SCA) [17]; also see the rather more extensive interpretation in Representative of Lloyds v Classic Sailing Adventures (Pty) Ltd 2010 (5) SA 90 (SCA) [23].

  291. 291.

    De Jager v ABSA Bank Bpk 2001 (3) SA 537 (SCA) [18–20].

  292. 292.

    Section 12(2) of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969.

  293. 293.

    Jacobs v Adonis 1996 (4) SA 246 (C) 250I–251J.

  294. 294.

    Section 11(d) of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969. Longer periods of up to 30 years apply to certain debts, for example some debts owed to the State and judgment debts (see section 11(a)–(c)). The 30 year-period also applies to arbitration awards that have the status of an order of court as between the parties (Blaas v Athanassiou 1991 (1) SA 723 (W) 725).

  295. 295.

    Section 12(3) of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969.

  296. 296.

    Section 14 of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969.

  297. 297.

    Section 15 of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969. A ‘process’ is defined in section 15(6) to include ‘a petition, a notice of motion, a rule nisi, a pleading in reconvention, a third party notice referred to in any rule of court, and any document whereby legal proceedings are commenced’.

  298. 298.

    On the meaning of this phrase see Murray & Roberts Construction (Cape) (Pty) Ltd v Upington Municipality 1984 1 SA 571 (A) 582; Loubser (1996), 120.

  299. 299.

    Section 13 of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969.

  300. 300.

    Section 10(1) of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969.

  301. 301.

    Section 10(2) of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969. However, according to section 13(2), a contractual debt which would have become prescribed before a reciprocal debt which arises from the same contract becomes prescribed, shall not become prescribed before the reciprocal debt becomes prescribed.

  302. 302.

    Section 10(3) of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969.

  303. 303.

    See section 17 of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969.

  304. 304.

    See Sect. 1.1; Loubser (1996) 210–213; Society of Lloyd’s v Price; Society of Lloyd’s v Lee 2006 (5) SA 393 (SCA). On international conventions that could govern prescription see Van Huyssteen et al. (2020), 610 n 361.

References

  • Bradfield GB (2016) Christie’s the law of contract in South Africa, 6th edn. LexisNexis

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuniberti G (2015) Article 1.4. In: Vogenauer S (ed) Commentary on the UNIDROIT principles of international commercial contracts (PICC), 2nd edn. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • De Stadler E (2014a) Section 5. In: Naudé T, Eiselen S (eds) Commentary on the Consumer Protection Act. Juta

    Google Scholar 

  • De Stadler E (2014b) Section 54. In: Naudé T, Eiselen S (eds) Commentary on the Consumer Protection Act. Juta

    Google Scholar 

  • De Stadler E (2014c) Section 56. In: Naudé T, Eiselen S (eds) Commentary on the Consumer Protection Act. Juta

    Google Scholar 

  • Dendy M (2019) Conflict of laws. In: Joubert WA (ed), The Law of South Africa (LAWSA), vol 7, no 1, 3rd edn. LexisNexis

    Google Scholar 

  • Du Plessis J (2014) Section 40. In: Naude T, Eiselen S (eds) Commentary on consumer protection act. Juta

    Google Scholar 

  • Du Plessis J (2015) Illegal contracts and the burden of proof. South Afr Law J 132:664

    Google Scholar 

  • Du Plessis J (2019) Section 40. In: Naudé T, Eiselen S (eds) Commentary on the Consumer Protection Act, revision service 4. Juta

    Google Scholar 

  • Forsyth CF (2012) Private international law, 5th edn. Juta

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchison D, Pretorius C (eds) (2017) The law of contract in South Africa, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, South Africa

    Google Scholar 

  • Loubser M (1996) Extinctive prescription. Juta

    Google Scholar 

  • Lubbe G (1996) Retraction of repudiation: a doctrine writ in water? Stellenbosch Law Rev 7:147

    Google Scholar 

  • Lubbe G, Murray C (1988) Farlam & Hathaway: contract—cases, materials, commentary, 3rd ed. Juta

    Google Scholar 

  • Naudé T (2014) Section 52, Regulation 44. In: Naudé T, Eiselen S (eds) Commentary on the Consumer Protection Act. Juta

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoop P (2019) Section 22. In: Naudé T, Eiselen S (eds) Commentary on the Consumer Protection Act, revision service 4. Juta

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Zyl E, De Stadler E (2017) Section 16. In: Naudé T, Eiselen S (eds), Commentary on the Consumer Protection Act, revision service 2. Juta

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Huyssteen LF, Lubbe GF, Reinecke MFB, Du Plessis JE (2020) Contract—general principles, 6th edn. Juta

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogenauer S (2015) Article 5.1.4. In: Vogenauer S (ed) Commentary on the UNIDROIT principles of international commercial contracts (PICC), 2nd edn. Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Wessels JW (1951) The law of contract in South Africa vol 1, 2nd ed. Butterworths

    Google Scholar 

List of Cases

  • A Becker & Co (Pty) Ltd v Becker 1981 (3) SA 406 (A)

    Google Scholar 

  • Adel Builders (Pty) Ltd v Thompson 1999 (1) SA 680 (SE)

    Google Scholar 

  • Advtech Resourcing (Pty) Ltd t/a Communicate Personnel Group v Kuhn 2008 (2) SA 375 (C)

    Google Scholar 

  • Afrisure CC v Watson NO 2009 (2) SA 127 (SCA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Afrox Healthcare Bpk v Strydom 2002 (6) SA 21 (SCA))

    Google Scholar 

  • Alfred McAlpine & Son (Pty) Ltd v Transvaal Provincial Administration 1974 (3) SA 506 (A)

    Google Scholar 

  • Allied Maples Group Ltd v Simmons & Simmons (A Firm) [1995] 1 WLR 1602 (CA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Amalgamated Beverage Industries Ltd v Rond Vista Wholesalers 2004 (1) SA 538 (SCA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Amoretti v Tuckers Land and Development Corporation (Pty) Ltd 1980 (2) SA 330 (W)

    Google Scholar 

  • Avondson Trust (Pty) Ltd v Wouda 1975 (2) SA 444 (T)

    Google Scholar 

  • Basson v Chilwan 1993 (3) SA 742 (A)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bavasah v Stirton [2014] 2 All SA 51 (WCC)

    Google Scholar 

  • Benson v SA Mutual Life Assurance Society 1986 (1) SA 776 (A)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernitz v Euvrard 1943 AD 595

    Google Scholar 

  • BK Tooling (Edms) Bpk v Scope Precision Engineering (Edms) Bpk 1979 (1) SA 391 (A)

    Google Scholar 

  • Blaas v Athanassiou 1991 (1) SA 723 (W)

    Google Scholar 

  • BOE Bank Bpk v Van Zyl 2002 (5) SA 165 (C)

    Google Scholar 

  • Boland Bank Ltd v Pienaar 1988 (3) SA 618 (A)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bothma-Batho Transport (Edms) Bpk v S Bothma & Seun Transport (Edms) Bpk 2014 (2) SA 494 (SCA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourbon-Leftley v WPK (Landbou) Bpk 1999 (1) SA 902 (C)

    Google Scholar 

  • Brisley v Drotsky 2002 (4) SA 1 (SCA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Cairns (Pty) Ltd v Playdon & Co Ltd 1948 (3) SA 99 (A)

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron v Bray Gibb & Co (Pvt) Ltd 1966 (3) SA 675 (R)

    Google Scholar 

  • CGEE Alsthom Equipments et Enterprises Electrique, South African Division v GKN Sankey (Pty) Ltd 1987 (1) SA 81 (A)

    Google Scholar 

  • Chamotte (Pty) Ltd v Carl Coetzee (Pty) Ltd 1973 (1) SA 644 (A)

    Google Scholar 

  • Chemsearch (SA) (Pty) Ltd v Borrowman 1979 (3) SA 1092 (T)

    Google Scholar 

  • Chevron South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Awaiz at 110 Drakensburg CC [2008] 1 All SA 557 (T)

    Google Scholar 

  • Cinema City (Pty) Ltd v Morgenstern Family Estates (Pty) Ltd 1980 (1) SA 796 (A)

    Google Scholar 

  • Citibank NA v Thandroyen Fruit Wholesalers CC 2007 (6) SA 110 (SCA)

    Google Scholar 

  • City of Cape Town (CMC Administration) v Bourbon-Leftley and another NNO 2006 (3) SA 488 (SCA)

    Google Scholar 

  • City of Johannesburg Municipal Pension Fund v City of Johannesburg [2005] JOL 15426 (W)

    Google Scholar 

  • Command Protection Services (Gauteng) (Pty) Ltd t/a Maxi Security v South African Post Office Ltd 2013 (2) SA 133 (SCA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Capstone 556 (Pty) Ltd [2016] 2 All SA 21 (SCA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Compagnie Interafricaine De Travaux v SA Transport Services 1991 (4) SA 217 (A)

    Google Scholar 

  • Conradie v Rossouw 1919 AD 279

    Google Scholar 

  • Consol Ltd t/a Consol Glass v Twee Jonge Gezellen (Pty) Ltd 2002 (6) SA 256 (C)

    Google Scholar 

  • Consol Ltd t/a Consol Glass v Twee Jonge Gezellen (Pty) Ltd 2005 (6) SA 1 (SCA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Consolidated News Agencies (Pty) Ltd (in Liquidation) v Mobile Telephone Networks (Pty) Ltd 2010 (3) SA 382 (SCA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Constantia Insurance Company Ltd v Compusource (Pty) Ltd 2005 (4) SA 345 (SCA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Custom Credit Corporation (Pty) Ltd v Shembe 1972 (3) SA 462 (A)

    Google Scholar 

  • D & H Piping Systems (Pty) Ltd v Trans Hex Group Ltd 2006 (3) SA 593 (SCA)

    Google Scholar 

  • De Jager v ABSA Bank Bpk 2001 (3) SA 537 (SCA)

    Google Scholar 

  • De Klerk v ABSA Bank Ltd 2003 (4) SA 315 (SCA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Den Braven SA (Pty) Ltd v Pillay 2008 (6) SA 229 (D)

    Google Scholar 

  • Desai NO v Desai 1996 (1) SA 141 (A)

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson Holdings (Group) (Pty) Ltd v Du Plessis 2008 (4) SA 214 (N)

    Google Scholar 

  • Dijkstra v Janowsky 1985 (3) SA 560 (C)

    Google Scholar 

  • Drifters Adventure Tours CC v Hircock 2007 (2) SA 83 (SCA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Du Plooy v Sasol Bedryf (Edms) Bpk 1988 (1) SA 438 (A)

    Google Scholar 

  • Durban's Water Wonderland (Pty) Ltd v Botha 1999 (1) SA 982 (SCA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekurhuleni Metro Municipality v Germiston Municipal Retirement Fund 2010 (2) SA 498 (SCA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Elgin Brown & Hamer (Pty) Ltd v Industrial Machinery Suppliers (Pty) Ltd 1993 (3) SA 424 (A)

    Google Scholar 

  • Engelbrecht v Khumalo 2016 (4) SA 564 (GP)

    Google Scholar 

  • Eriksen Motors (Welkom) Ltd v Protea Motors, Warrenton 1973 (3) SA 685 (A)

    Google Scholar 

  • Everett v Marian Heights (Pty) Ltd 1970 (1) SA 198 (C)

    Google Scholar 

  • Everfresh Market Virginia (Pty) Ltd v Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd 2012 (1) SA 256 (CC).

    Google Scholar 

  • Experian South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Haynes 2013 (1) SA 135 (GSJ)

    Google Scholar 

  • Extel Industrial (Pty) Ltd v Crown Mills (Pty) Ltd 1999 (2) SA 719 (SCA)

    Google Scholar 

  • First National Bank of SA Ltd v Rosenblum 2001 (4) SA 189 (SCA)

    Google Scholar 

  • FJ Mitrie (Pty) Ltd v Madgwick 1979 (1) SA 232 (D)

    Google Scholar 

  • Fourie v Sentrasure Bpk 1997 (4) SA 950 (NC)

    Google Scholar 

  • Freddy Hirsch Group (Pty) Ltd v Chickenland (Pty) Ltd 2011 (4) SA 276 (SCA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Gassner NO v Minister of Law & Order 1995 (1) SA 322 (C)

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerolomou Constructions (Pty) Ltd v Van Wyk 2011 (4) SA 500 (GNP)

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser v Millward 1949 (2) SA 853 (W)

    Google Scholar 

  • Gloria’s Caterers (Pty) Ltd t/a Connoisseur Hotel v Friedman 1983 (3) SA 390 (T)

    Google Scholar 

  • Glynn v Margetson [1893] AC 351 (HL)

    Google Scholar 

  • Goedhals v Graaff-Reinet Municipality 1955 (3) SA 482 (C)

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman Brothers (Pty) Ltd v Rennies Group Ltd 1997 (4) SA 91 (W)

    Google Scholar 

  • Grand Mines (Pty) Ltd v Giddey NO 1999 (1) SA 960 (SCA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall-Thermotank Natal (Pty) Ltd v Hardman 1968 (4) SA 818 (D)

    Google Scholar 

  • Haynes v Kingwilliamstown Municipality 1951 (2) SA 371 (A)

    Google Scholar 

  • Herman v Shapiro & Co 1926 TPD 367

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmdene Brickworks (Pty) Ltd v Roberts Construction Co Ltd 1977 (3) SA 670 (A)

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn v LA Health Medical Scheme 2015 (7) BCLR 780 (CC)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt v Liebherr-Africa Managed Pension Plan and Another (2) [2002] 1 BPLR 2955 (PFA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Ikamva Architects CC v Coega Development Corporation [2015] JOL 34289 (ECG)

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs v Adonis 1996 (4) SA 246 (C)

    Google Scholar 

  • Johannesburg Country Club v Stott 2004 (5) SA 511 (SCA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonker v Yzelle 1948 (2) SA 942 (T)

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonnes v Anglo-African Shipping Co (1936) Ltd 1972 (2) SA 827 (A)

    Google Scholar 

  • Jowell v Bramwell-Jones 2000 (3) SA 274 (SCA)

    Google Scholar 

  • KIA Intertrade Johannesburg (Pty) Ltd v Infinite Motors (Pty) Ltd [1999] 2 All SA 268 (W)

    Google Scholar 

  • KPMG Chartered Accountants (SA) v Securefin Ltd 2009 (4) SA 399 (SCA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Leiserowitz v Grylls 1984 (2) SA 834 (C)

    Google Scholar 

  • Leyland Finance Co Ltd v Van Rensburg 1970 (4) SA 145 (T)

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackay v Naylor 1917 TPD 533

    Google Scholar 

  • Magna Alloys and Research (SA) (Pty) Ltd v Ellis 1984 (4) SA 874 (A)

    Google Scholar 

  • Makate v Vodacom Ltd 2016 (4) SA 121 (CC)

    Google Scholar 

  • Maleth Investment Fund (Pty) Limited v Paget [2014] 3 All SA 79 (GJ)

    Google Scholar 

  • Maphango v Aengus Lifestyle Properties (Pty) Ltd 2011 (5) SA 19 (SCA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin Harris & Seuns OVS (Edms) Bpk v Qwa Qwa Regeringsdiens 2000 (3) SA 339 (SCA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Masstores (Pty) Ltd v Murray & Roberts Construction (Pty) Ltd 2008 (6) SA 654 (SCA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Matador Buildings (Pty) Ltd v Harman 1971 (1) SA 287 (C)

    Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams v First Consolidated Holdings (Pty) Ltd 1982 (2) SA 1 (A)

    Google Scholar 

  • Medscheme Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Bhamjee 2005 (5) SA 339 (SCA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Meskin NO v Anglo-American Corporation of SA Ltd 1968 (4) SA 793 (W)

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer v Hessling 1992 (3) SA 851 (NmS)

    Google Scholar 

  • Middleton v Carr 1949 (2) SA 374 (A)

    Google Scholar 

  • Mink v Vryheid Coal & Iron Co 1912 NPD 182

    Google Scholar 

  • Mpumelelo Projects Construction CC v Sasol Wax (Pty) Ltd [2014] JOL 31764 (FB)

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray & Roberts Construction (Cape) (Pty) Ltd v Upington Municipality 1984 1 SA 571 (A)

    Google Scholar 

  • MV Lina, Union Shipping and Managing Co SA v Lina Maritime Ltd 1998 (4) SA 633 (N)

    Google Scholar 

  • MV Navigator (No 1): Wellness International Network Ltd v MV Navigator 2004 (5) SA 10 (C)

    Google Scholar 

  • MV Snow Crystal: Transnet Ltd t/a National Ports Authority v Owner of MV Snow Crystal 2008 (4) SA 111 (SCA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Natal Joint Municipal Pension Fund v Endumeni Municipality 2012 (4) SA 593 (SCA)

    Google Scholar 

  • NBS Boland Bank Ltd v One Berg River Drive 1999 (4) SA 928 (SCA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Nedbank Ltd v Pestana 2009 (2) SA 189 (SCA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Nedbank Ltd v Petch Manufacturing (Pty) Ltd [2008] JOL 21319 (W)

    Google Scholar 

  • Nel v Cloete 1972 (2) SA 150 (A)

    Google Scholar 

  • Netherlands Bank of South Africa v Stern NO 1955 (1) SA 667 (W)

    Google Scholar 

  • Niemand v Okapi Investments (Edms) Bpk 1983 (4) SA 762 (T)

    Google Scholar 

  • Nuclear Fuels Corporation of SA (Pty) Ltd v Orda AG 1996 (4) SA 1190 (SCA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Oakdene Square Properties (Pty) Ltd v Farm Bothasfontein (Kyalami) (Pty) Ltd 2013 (4) SA 539 (SCA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Oos-Vrystaat Kaap Bedryf Beperk v Van Aswegen 2005 (4) SA 417 (O)

    Google Scholar 

  • Pangbourne Properties Ltd v Nitor Construction (Pty) Ltd 1993 (4) SA 206 (W)

    Google Scholar 

  • Paradyskloof Golf Estate (Pty) Ltd v Stellenbosch Municipality 2011 (2) SA 525 (SCA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Peel v Hamon J & C Engineering (Pty) Ltd 2013 (2) SA 331 (GSJ)

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeiffer v First National Bank of SA Ltd 1998 (3) SA 1018 (SCA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Phame v Paizes (Pty) Ltd 1973 (3) SA 397 (A)

    Google Scholar 

  • Philotex (Pty) Ltd v Snyman 1998 (2) SA 138 (SCA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Pintado Trading 800 (Pty) Ltd v Fleet Africa (Pty) Ltd [2010] JOL 25698 (KZD)

    Google Scholar 

  • Plaaskem (Pty) Ltd v Nippon Africa Chemicals (Pty) Ltd 2014 (5) SA 287 (SCA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Polysius (Pty) Ltd v Transvaal Alloys (Pty) Ltd 1983 (2) SA 630 (W)

    Google Scholar 

  • Potgieter v Potgieter NO 2012 (1) SA 637 (SCA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratt v FirstRand Bank Ltd 2009 (2) SA 119 (SCA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Preller v Jordaan 1956 (1) SA 483 (A)

    Google Scholar 

  • Pretoria Portland Cement Co Ltd v South African Railways and Harbours 1979 (2) SA 188 (T)

    Google Scholar 

  • Protea Property Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Boundary Financing Ltd (formerly known as International Bank of Southern Africa Ltd) 2008 (3) SA 33 (C)

    Google Scholar 

  • Putco Ltd v TV & Radio Guarantee Co (Pty) Ltd & Other Related Cases 1985 (4) SA 809 (A)

    Google Scholar 

  • Quick v Goldwasser 1956 (2) SA 525 (SR)

    Google Scholar 

  • Ranch International Pipelines (Tvl) (Pty) Ltd v LMG Construction (City) (Pty) Ltd 1984 (3) SA 861 (W)

    Google Scholar 

  • Rand Rietfontein Estates Ltd v Cohn 1937 AD 317

    Google Scholar 

  • Registrar of Medical Schemes v Suremed Medical Scheme 2012 (2) SA 512 (SCA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Representative of Lloyds v Classic Sailing Adventures (Pty) Ltd 2010 (5) SA 90 (SCA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy v Basson NO 2007 (5) SA 84 (C)

    Google Scholar 

  • SA Sentrale Ko-op Graanmaatskappy Bpk v Shifren 1964 (4) SA 760 (A)

    Google Scholar 

  • Sasfin (Pty) Ltd v Beukes 1989 (1) SA 1 (A)

    Google Scholar 

  • Sasfin (Pty) Ltd v Jessop 1997 (1) SA 675 (W)

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott v Poupard 1971 (2) SA 373 (A)

    Google Scholar 

  • Seeff Commercial & Industrial Properties (Pty) Ltd v Silberman 2001 (3) SA 952 (SCA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Sentinel Mining Industry Retirement Fund v Waz Properties (Pty) Ltd 2013 (3) SA 132 (SCA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Senwes Ltd v Muller 2002 (4) SA 134 (T)

    Google Scholar 

  • Senwes Ltd v Van der Merwe 2012 ZASCA 192 (30–11–2012)

    Google Scholar 

  • Silent Pond Investments CC v Woolworths (Pty) Ltd 2011 (6) SA 343 (D)

    Google Scholar 

  • Society of Lloyd's v Price; Society of Lloyd's v Lee 2006 (5) SA 393 (SCA)

    Google Scholar 

  • South African Forestry Co Ltd v York Timbers Ltd 2005 (3) SA 323 (SCA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Southernport Developments (Pty) Ltd v Transnet Ltd 2005 (2) SA 202 (SCA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Spring Forest Trading CC v Wilberry (Pty) Ltd t/a Ecowash 2015 (2) SA 118 (SCA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Standard Chartered Bank of Canada v Nedperm Bank Ltd 1994 (4) SA 747 (A)

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweet v Ragerguhara NO 1978 (1) SA 131 (D)

    Google Scholar 

  • Telcordia Technologies Inc v Telkom SA Ltd 2007 (3) SA 266 (SCA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Reenen Steel (Pty) Ltd v Smith NO 2002 (4) SA 264 (SCA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Victoria Falls & Transvaal Power Co Ltd v Consolidated Langlaagte Mines Ltd 1915 AD 1

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel NO v Volkersz 1977 (1) SA 537 (T)

    Google Scholar 

  • Vromolimnos (Pty) Ltd v Weichbold 1991 (2) SA 157 (C)

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitfield v Phillips 1957 (3) SA 318 (A)

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkins NO v Voges 1994 (3) SA 130 (A)

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson v Smith 1956 (1) SA 393 (W)

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittmann v Deutscher Schulverein, Pretoria 1998 (4) SA 423 (T)

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodburn Mansions (Pty) Ltd v Dowell 1961 (3) SA 893 (N)

    Google Scholar 

  • Woods v Walters 1921 AD 303

    Google Scholar 

  • World Leisure Holidays (Pty) Ltd v Georges 2002 (5) SA 531 (W)

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhongji Development Construction Engineering Co Ltd v Kamoto Copper Co 2015 (1) SA 345 (SCA)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, South Africa

    Jacques du Plessis

Authors
  1. Jacques du Plessis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jacques du Plessis .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy

    Salvatore Mancuso

  2. University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy

    Mauro Bussani

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

du Plessis, J. (2022). South African Report. In: Mancuso, S., Bussani, M. (eds) The Principles of BRICS Contract Law. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 102. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-00844-3_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-00844-3_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-00843-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-00844-3

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation