Aida Uitenhage CC v Singapi

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Kroon J and Nepgen J
• Judgment Date: 28 August 1992
• Citation: 1992 (4) SA 675 (E)
• Hearing Date: 28 August 1992
• Court: Eastern Cape Division

Kroon J:

For the sake of convenience the parties will be referred to as F the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff, an estate agent, sued the defendant in the magistrate's court for payment of the sum of R7 500, being commission allegedly due arising out of a contract for the purchase of a house which was concluded on 13 February 1991 between the defendant as purchaser and one Moolman as seller. In the result the magistrate G absolved the defendant from the instance with costs. That decision is the subject of this appeal.

It was not in dispute at the trial that Moolman had given a mandate to the plaintiff to find a purchaser for his house. It was further common cause that the plaintiff had introduced the defendant to Moolman and that H such introduction had been the effective cause of the conclusion of the contract referred to earlier.

In terms of the contract the purchase price of the house was R125 000, the whole of which was payable against registration of transfer and no portion of the purchase price was stipulated as a deposit. Other relevant terms of the contract were the following:

'5.

I This offer is made subject to the suspensive condition that a loan/s, secured by bond/s totalling R75 000 at prevailing bank or building society rates and conditions be arranged for the purchaser by the seller, the agents (ie the plaintiff) or the purchaser. The purchaser undertakes to timeously take steps and sign all documents that may be necessary to procure the loan/s and to comply and procure compliance with all the requirements of the lender. . . .

J . . .

Kroon J

7.

A Upon acceptance hereof or, if the offer is subject to any suspensive condition/s, upon fulfilment thereof the seller shall be liable to AIDA (ie the plaintiff) for commission in terms of the tariff of the Institute of Estate Agents of South Africa. The amount of such commission may be deducted from the deposit made in terms of clause 1(a). In the event of the sale being cancelled as a result of a breach on the part of the purchaser AIDA shall be entitled, but not B obliged, to claim such commission from the purchaser without prejudice to AIDA's rights against the seller. . . .

8.

In the event of the purchaser committing any breach of the terms of this offer and failing to remedy it within seven days of despatch per prepaid registered post, or delivery by hand to the purchaser and the agents, of a letter requiring the breach to be remedied, the seller shall be entitled without prejudice to any other rights which the C seller may have at law to:

(a)

cancel this agreement and claim damages, or

(b)

sue for the full purchase price.'

(My italicising.)

It should further be recorded that the contract contained a written D acceptance by the plaintiff of the benefits accruing to it in terms of the contract.

It was common cause, too, that the commission, if payable, amounted to the sum of R7 500.

The relevant paragraphs in the plaintiff's particulars of claim read as E follows:

'11.

Dit was 'n verdere uitdruklike term van die ooreenkoms dat verweerder betyds alle stappe sou neem en alle dokumente sou onderteken ten einde 'n lening te bekom.

12.

Verweerder het versuim om aan hierdie bepaling te voldoen en het versuim om 'n lening te bekom.

13.

F In die vooropstelling het verweerder kontrakbreuk gepleeg.

14.

As gevolg van voormelde kontrakbreuk het Adriaan Joubert Moolman op 14 Maart 1991 deur sy prokureur 'n skrywe per hand aan verweerder afgelewer. 'n Ware afskrif van hierdie skrywe word hierby aangeheg as aanhangsel B.

15.

G Verweerder het versuim om binne sewe dae na voormelde skrywe sy kontrakbreuk reg te stel.

16.

In die vooropstelling is aan klousule 8 van die koopooreenkoms voldoen en het Adriaan Joubert Moolman die ooreenkoms gekanselleer.'

The letter, annexure B, reads as follows:

H 'Ons hou opdrag van ons kliënt, Dr J Moolman van Winterhoekrylaan 41, Uitenhage om hierdie skrywe aan u te rig.

Kliënt se opdragte is dat u 'n skriftelike aanbod gemaak het om die eiendom geleë te Reidstraat 2, Uitenhage van kliënt te koop, wat deur kliënt aanvaar is.

Kliënt se opdragte is dat u hom nou in kennis gestel het dat u nie met die kontrak wil voortgaan nie en die ooreenkoms daarmee eensydig beëindig het.

I Ons plaas hiermee op rekord dat kliënt nie u eensydige kansellasie van die koopooreenkoms aanvaar nie en dat indien u skrywer nie voor of op 22 Maart 1991 skriftelik in kennis stel dat u met die koopooreenkoms voortgaan nie, skrywer opdrag het om onverwyld dagvaarding teen u uit te reik vir spesifieke nakoming van die koopooreenkoms.'

Further particulars to para 11 of the particulars of claim read as J follows:

Kroon J

A 'Verweerder moes eiser in terme van klousule 5 van die koopkontrak in 'n posisie geplaas het om te poog om 'n lening namens verweerder te bekom in die bedrag van R75 000.

Verweerder het nagelaat, geweier en versuim om redelike stappe te neem om 'n lening in die bedrag van R75 000 betyds te bekom, waar dit sy plig was om so te doen.

B Verweerder het geweier, nagelaat en versuim om op aandrang van eiser, aansoekvorms ter verkryging van 'n lening by óf Allied Bouvereniging, óf United Bouvereniging, óf SA Permanente Bouvereniging en/óf Nedbank Bpk te onderteken.'

The defendant's plea responded to the above allegations as follows: C 'Ad para 11

Verweerder erken dat dit 'n uitdruklike term van die koopooreenkoms was dat verweerder betyds alle stappe sou neem en alle dokumente sou onderteken ten einde 'n lening te bekom.

Verweerder ontken dat hy nagelaat, geweier en versuim het om redelike D stappe te neem om 'n lening te bekom en vorder bewys hiervan. Verweerder ontken dat hy geweier, nagelaat en versuim het om op aandrang van eiser aansoekvorms ter verkryging van 'n lening by Allied, United, SA Permanente of Nedbank te bekom en vorder bewys hiervan.

Ad para 12 E

Verweerder ontken die inhoud van hierdie paragraaf en vorder bewys hiervan. Verweerder pleit dat hy nie aan hierdie bepaling van die kontrak kon voldoen nie, aangesien dit onmoontlik vir hom was om 'n lening te bekom. Verweerder pleit dus dat sy verpligting in terme van die koopkontrak onmoontlik was. F

Ad para 13

Verweerder ontken die inhoud van hierdie paragraaf en spesifiek dat hy kontrakbreuk gepleeg het. Verweerder pleit dat hy sy verpligtinge in terme van die ooreenkoms nagekom het.

Ad para 14 G

Verweerder erken slegs die bestaan van voormelde skrywe.

Ad para 15

Verweerder ontken die inhoud van hierdie paragraaf en vorder bewys hiervan. H

Ad para 16

Verweerder ontken die inhoud van hierdie paragraaf en vorder bewys hiervan. Verweerder pleit dat Adriaan Joubert Moolman nie die ooreenkoms kon kanselleer nie, aangesien daar geen ooreenkoms tot stand gekom het I tussen die partye nie, weens die feit dat daar nie voldoen is aan die opskortende voorwaardes soos vervat in para 5 van die koopkontrak.'

With reference to the defendant's response to para 14 of the particulars of claim the defendant must, in terms of Rule 19(10) of the Magistrates' Courts Rules, be taken to have admitted receipt of the hand-delivered J letter on the date alleged by the plaintiff.

Kroon J

A On analysis, the essence of the defence as pleaded was a denial of any breach of contract by the defendant in the form of non-compliance with the provision that he co-operate to secure a loan in that the obtaining of a loan had proved to be impossible. Non-fulfilment of the suspensive condition in question had resulted in the failure of the contract and accordingly there was no contract capable of being cancelled by Moolman. B At the commencement of the hearing in the court below, however, the defendant sought, and was granted, an amendment of his plea by the addition thereto of an allegation that as at the date on which the contract was concluded he had not been in a financial position to purchase the house. The amendment incorrectly referred to the 'eiser se woonhuis' and this aspect was rectified at the hearing of the appeal. Although this C amendment was not couched in clear language, it seems to me, having regard to the latitude with which pleadings in the magistrates' courts are approached, that the intention of the pleader was to raise the contention that the undertaking by the defendant to pay commission, contained in para 7 of the agreement, was subject to the implied condition that he, the D defendant, was a financially able purchaser at the time of the conclusion of the contract and that was the basis on which the trial was conducted in the court a quo and the contrary was not argued on appeal.

Three witnesses were called on behalf of the plaintiff, viz Moolman, a Mrs Butler, who was the employee of the plaintiff who introduced the E defendant to Moolman, and one Hartzenberg, the sole member of the plaintiff close corporation. On behalf of the defendant only one Blom, an employee of Saambou Building Society, testified.

The magistrate found that the defendant had breached the contract and that Moolman had cancelled the contract by reason thereof. She held, however, that the defendant's liability to pay commission had been subject F to the implied condition that the defendant was in a financial position at the time the contract was concluded to give effect to the purchase, that the onus of establishing this requirement had rested on the plaintiff and that the plaintiff had failed to discharge such onus.

Before I consider the evidence relating to these various issues and the G validity of the magistrate's findings thereanent, it would be convenient to shortly dispose of another matter. During the argument on appeal counsel were requested to deal with the question whether, in the light of the wording of the letter, annexure B to the particulars of claim, which did not include a notice of intention to cancel the agreement...