The dispute arose under a settlement agreement in obliging the defendants to deliver 100 000 cubic metres of “clean sand (top soil excluded)” which was “stockpiled”. It was not clean sand nor properly stockpiled and yielded only two thirds of the amount of clean sand, leading to a large damages claim. The Supreme Court
A Constitutionally invalid agreement is void from inception and does not confer any rights under the contract
The dispute concerned a lease for a hotel in Coffee Bay, Transkei for a period of 20 years that was held to be constitutionally invalid because the lease had been signed contrary to the laws relating to public
An option to renew a lease at a rental to be agreed between landlord and tenant, failing which to be determined by a third party, was not validly renewed by the lessee offering an increased rent that was unacceptable to the landlord and then not invoking the process for third party determination.
The tenant gave
Contracting parties cannot escape the enforcement of a contract on the basis of the terms being contrary to public policy unless they can prove that the terms are so unfair, unreasonable or unjust in the circumstances that a court should intervene. The Constitutional Court reaffirmed that although constitutional values such as Ubuntu, reasonableness and fairness
Where a contract has been reduced to writing the writing is regarded as the exclusive embodiment of the transaction and no extrinsic (parol) evidence which would have the effect of contradicting, altering, adding to or varying the written contract may be relied on. This is referred to as the parol evidence rule. The inadmissibility of
The Supreme Court of Appeal held in March 2020 that an invalid clause in a lease does not necessarily result in the unenforceability of the entire agreement.
Two parties entered into an agreement in terms of which the lessor let the premises to the lessee for a period of ten years and three months. The
Ten years after the 2010 World Cup the Supreme Court of Appeal has given judgment in a dispute between the South African Football Association and a travel business relating to travel arrangements for the competition. The parties had a settlement agreement which was in ‘full and final settlement’ of the dispute relating to whether SAFA
The basis for contractual insurance liability is actual consensus supported by the insureds’ and the insurers’ serious intention to be legally bound to what they have agreed to.
There is no consensus if there is a material mistake relating to the identity of the parties to the insurance contract, or the object of the risk,
It has long been held that although values such as good faith, reasonableness and fairness are fundamental to our law of contract, they do not constitute independent rules that courts can employ to intervene in contractual relationships (South African Forestry Co Ltd v York Timbers Ltd). The fact that a term of a