Aida Uitenhage CC v Singapi

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Citation: 1992 (4) SA 675 (E)

Aida Uitenhage CC v Singapi
1992 (4) SA 675 (E)

1992 (4) SA p675

Citation	1992 (4) SA 675 (E)
Court	Eastern Cape Division
Judge	Kroon J and Nepgen J
Heard	August 28, 1992
Judgment	August 28, 1992

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

H Principal and agent — Estate agent — Commission — Claim for payment of — Purchaser agreeing in contract of sale to pay commission — Financial ability of purchaser to give effect to the purchase — Purchaser's ability to give effect to purchase irrelevant unless contract clearly states otherwise. I

Headnote : Kopnota

The appellant sued the respondent in the magistrate's court for the payment of an amount of R7 500 being commission which it claimed was due to it arising from the conclusion of a contract of sale of a house by one M to the respondent. The contract of sale was made subject to a suspensive condition that 'a loan, secured by a bond totalling R75 000 at prevailing bank or building society rates and conditions be arranged for the J purchaser by the seller, the agents or the purchaser'. The

1992 (4) SA p676

A respondent undertook to timeously take steps and sign all documents necessary to procure the loan and to comply with all the requirements of the lender. The contract furthermore provided that '(U)pon acceptance hereof or, if the offer is subject to any suspensive conditions, upon fulfilment thereof the seller shall be liable to AIDA (the appellant) for commission in terms of the tariff of the Institute of Estate Agents of South Africa. . . . 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.' The respondent neglected to arrange a loan and was in terms of the contract given seven days in which to remedy his breach, which he failed to comply with. The seller then cancelled the contract. The magistrate held that the respondent's liability to pay commission had been subject to the implied condition that he was in a financial position at the time the contract was concluded to give effect to the purchase and that the appellant had not discharged the onus of C proving that he was in such position. On appeal it was contended for the appellant that where the buyer was sought to be held liable for the commission his financial position at the time of the purchase was irrelevant.

Held, that the proposition that a buyer, who enters into a contract embodying an agreement that he pay the agent's commission, can escape liability for such commission by reason of his own financial inability to D implement the purchase was not one which readily commended itself and that it would require very clear language to justify such conclusion: such language was missing in the present contract.

Held, further, that, in the event that the above conclusion was incorrect, the appellant had discharged the onus of proving that the respondent was able to implement the purchase. Appeal upheld. E

Case Information

Appeal from the dismissal of a civil claim in a magistrate's court. The facts appear from the reasons for judgment.

M P Q Spruyt for the appellant.

R W N Brooks for the respondent.

Judgment

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 . . .

1992 (4) SA p677

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:

1992 (4) SA p678

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...