Bayer South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Another v Viljoen

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Joubert JA, Vivier JA, Milne JA, M T Steyn JA and Nicholas AJA
• Judgment Date: 28 September 1989
• Citation: 1990 (2) SA 647 (A)
• Court: Appellate Division

Milne JA:

E The respondent in this appeal was the plaintiff in the Court below. The first appellant, Bayer South Africa (Pty) Ltd ('Bayer'), was the defendant and the second appellant, WP (Co-Operative) Ltd ('WPK'), was a third party who became such in terms of Rule 13 of the Rules of Court. The plaintiff, a farmer in the Hex River Valley, successfully F sued Bayer and WPK in the Cape of Good Hope Provincial Division for damages arising out of blemishes and damage to his crop of table grapes caused by an infestation of powdery mildew (oidium tuckeri, poeieragtige skimmel, witroes, to which I shall refer as oidium or powdery mildew) during the 1983/84 season, it being alleged that this infestation was due to the lack of effectiveness of a fungicide, Bayleton, which the trial Court (Burger J) held had been distributed by Bayer to WPK and G sold by the latter to the plaintiff. The quantum of the plaintiff's damages was agreed during the trial in the sum of R111 589,05 and judgment was given in this amount against Bayer and WPK jointly and severally. They both appeal to this Court with leave of the Court a quo. The plaintiff originally sued Bayer alone, founding his action on breach H of contract and alleging sales of Bayleton by Bayer to him. Bayer filed a plea denying, inter alia, that it had sold the Bayleton to the plaintiff. The plaintiff thereafter issued a third party notice to WPK alleging that the latter had sold the Bayleton to him. At the same time the plaintiff amended his pleadings so as to allege an alternative cause I of action against Bayer based upon negligent misrepresentation.

The claims

For reasons which will become apparent, the exact basis upon which the plaintiff claimed against Bayer and WPK is important, and I accordingly J reproduce in full the plaintiff's amended particulars of claim against

Milne JA

A Bayer, and that portion of the annexure to the plaintiff's third party notice to WPK which sets out the case which the plaintiff pleaded against WPK.

The plaintiff's amended particulars of claim

'1

Eiser is Jacobus Johannes Viljoen, 'n volwasse manspersoon en boer van "Millhurst", De Doorns, Kaap. B

2

Verweerder is Bayer Suid-Afrika (Edms) Bpk, 'n maatskappy met beperkte aanspreeklikheid behoorlik ingelyf kragtens die Maatskappywette van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika, met sy geregistreerde hoofkantoor en/of vernaamste plek van besigheid geleë te Isando, Transvaal.

3

C Te alle saaklike tye hierna genoem:

(1)

was verweerder, onder andere, 'n handelaar in en/of 'n verspreider van giftige middels insluitende in sistemiese swamdoder bekend as Bayleton EK (hierna "Bayleton") vir die bespuiting en/of bestryding en/of beheer van poeieragtige D skimmel (oidium tuckeri) op wyn en tafeldruiwe;

(2)

het verweerder teenoor die publiek en in besonder teenoor eiser voorgegee dat hy oor bekwaamheid en deskundige kennis ten opsigte van Bayleton beskik.

4 (1)

Gedurende ongeveer Oktober 1983 en op eiser se voormelde plaas het verweerder Bayleton vir aanwending en toediening E aan eiser se wingerde aan eiser verkoop en gelewer;

(2)

dit was 'n uitdruklike, alternatiewelik stilswyende, en in iedere geval wesenlike bepaling van die gemelde ooreenkoms dat Bayleton geskik sou wees vir die doel waarvoor dit verkoop is, naamlik as 'n sistemiese swamdoder vir die beheer F van poeieragtige skimmel op wyn en tafeldruiwe in eiser se wingerde en dat dit nie eiser se druiwe sou beskadig of eiser se oes benadeel nie;

(3)

alternatiewelik tot onderpara 4(2) hierbo beweer eiser soos volg:

(a)

G ten tyde van die aangaan van die voormelde ooreenkoms was verweerder daarvan bewus:

(i)

dat eiser 'n boer is;

(ii)

dat eiser die Bayleton benodig vir die toediening en aanwending vir die beheer van poeieragtige skimmel op die druiwe in eiser se wingerde;

(iii)

H dat indien Bayleton nie die poeieragtige skimmel op die druiwe in die wingerde beheer nie en/of die druiwe en wingerd sou beskadig en/of eiser se oes nadelig sou aantas, eiser skade sou ly;

(b)

gemelde ooreenkoms is gesluit op die basis van die I voormelde kennis.

5

Alternatiewelik tot para 4 beweer eiser:

(1)

verweerder as 'n instansie wat teenoor die publiek voorgee dat hy oor bekwaamheid en deskundige kennis ten opsigte van Bayleton beskik, was bewus daarvan dat eiser op sy tegniese J advies sou steun by die aankoop van Bayleton;

Milne JA

(2)

A daar het gevolglik 'n regsplig op verweerder gerus om vir eiser op 'n bekwame en deskundige wyse en sonder nalatigheid te adviseer aangaande die doeltreffendheid van Bayleton as 'n sistemiese swamdoder vir die beheer van poeieragtige skimmel op wyn en tafeldruiwe;

(3)

teenstrydig met die gemelde regsplig het verweerder B nalatiglik die Bayleton voormeld aanbeveel terwyl dit nie geskik was vir die doel waarvoor eiser dit gekoop het, naamlik as 'n sistemiese swamdoder vir die beheer van poeieragtige skimmel op wyn en tafeldruiwe nie.

6

Gedurende Oktober 1983 tot Maart 1984 het eiser Bayleton aan sy C wingerde voormeld toegedien.

7

Teenstrydig met verweerder se verpligting as 'n handelaar en/of verspreider van Bayleton, alternatiewelik teenstrydig met die bepaling van die ooreenkoms, alternatiewelik nalatiglik is die poeieragtige skimmel op die druiwe nie deur die aanwending en D toediening van Bayleton beheer nie en is eiser se oes nadelig aangetas.

8

As gevolg van verweerder se voormelde kontrakbreuk, alternatiewelik nalatigheid het eiser skade gely ten bedrae van R93 542 ten opsigte van die betaling van welke bedrag verweerder regtens aan eiser aanspreeklik is.' E

The plaintiff's claim against WPK

'7

Eiser beweer gevolglik teenoor die derde party as volg:

Te alle saaklike tye hierna genoem:

(1)

was die derde party, onder andere, 'n handelaar in of 'n F verspreider van giftige middels insluitende 'n sistemiese swamdoder bekend as Bayleton EK (hierna Bayleton) vir die bespuiting en/of bestryding en/of beheer van poeieragtige skimmel (oidium tuckeri) op wyn en tafeldruiwe;

(2)

het die derde party teenoor die publiek en in die besonder G teenoor eiser voorgegee dat hy oor bekwaamheid en deskundige kennis van Bayleton beskik;

(3)

gedurende ongeveer Oktober/Desember 1983 het die derde party Bayleton vir aanwending en toediening aan eiser se wingerde aan eiser verkoop en gelewer;

(4)

H dit was 'n uitdruklik alternatiewelik stilswyende en in ieder geval wesenlike bepaling van die gemelde ooreenkoms dat Bayleton geskik sou wees vir die doel waarvoor dit verkoop is, naamlik as 'n sistemiese swamdoder vir die beheer van poeieragtige skimmel op wyn en tafeldruiwe in eiser se wingerde en dat dit nie eiser se druiwe sou beskadig of eiser I se oes benadeel nie;

(5)

alternatiewelik tot onderpara 7(4) hierbo beweer eiser soos volg:

(a)

ten tyde van die aangaan van die voormelde ooreenkoms was die derde party daarvan bewus:

(i)

J dat eiser 'n boer is;

Milne JA

(ii)

A dat eiser die Bayleton benodig vir die toediening en aanwending vir die beheer van poeieragtige skimmel op die druiwe in eiser se wingerde; en

(iii)

dat indien Bayleton nie die poeieragtige skimmel op die druiwe in die wingerde beheer nie en/of druiwe en wingerd beskadig en/of eiser se oes nadelig sou B aantas eiser skade sou ly;

(b)

gemelde ooreekoms is gesluit op die basis van die voormelde kennis;

(6)

gedurende Oktober 1983 tot Maart 1984 het eiser Bayleton aan sy wingerde voormeld toegedien;

(7)

C teenstrydig met die derde party se verpligting as 'n handelaar en/of verspreider van Bayleton alternatiewelik teenstrydig met die bepaling van die ooreenkoms is die poeieragtige skimmel op die druiwe nie deur die aanwending en toediening van Bayleton beheer nie en is eiser se oes nadelig aangetas;

(8)

D as gevolg van die verweerder se kontrakbreuk, alternatiewelik nalatigheid en/of die derde party se kontrakbreuk het eiser skade gely ten bedrae van R93 542 ten opsigte van die betaling van welke bedrag die verweerder en die derde party aan eiser aanspreeklik is.'

The reference in para 3(1) of the particulars of claim to 'Bayleton EK' E is a reference to Bayleton Emulsifiable Concentrate. This was registered as an agricultural remedy in terms of s 3 of the Fertilisers, Farm Feeds, Agricultural Remedies and Stock Remedies Act 36 of 1947 on 6 October 1981.

The claim against Bayer F

The Court a quo found that no privity of contract between the plaintiff and Bayer had been established and that the plaintiff accordingly had to prove negligence on the part of Bayer. It found that such negligence had been established. The finding that no privity of contract existed between the plaintiff and Bayer was not challenged, and G we are not here concerned with a product which is alleged to have damaged the plaintiff's crops nor was it alleged that the product was 'dangerous' or 'unsafe'. It is common cause that what damaged the plaintiff's crops was the oidium. What we are concerned with is the alleged failure of Bayer's product to control the outbreak of oidium on the plaintiff's grapes. H

The issue

The main question in the appeal is whether or not the trial Court was correct in holding that the plaintiff had established the requisites of an action based upon negligent misrepresentation. It was common cause that in order to do so the plaintiff had to prove that:

(a)

I Bayer made a statement that Bayleton was suitable for the purpose for which the plaintiff bought it, namely for use as a systemic fungicide for the control of powdery mildew on wine and table grapes;

(b)

this statement was incorrect;

(c)

J Bayer was negligent in making the statement; and

Milne JA

(d)

A the damage which the plaintiff suffered was caused by the making of the statement, ie that the plaintiff was induced to apply Bayleton...