Alfred Mcalpine & Son (Pty) Ltd v Transvaal Provincial Administration

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Citation: 1974 (3) SA 506 (A)

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

1974 (3) SA p506

Citation	1974 (3) SA 506 (A)
Court	Appèlafdeling
Judge	Rumpff Wn HR, Botha AR, Jansen AR, Muller AR en Corbett Wn AR
Heard	February 18, 1974; February 19, 1974; February 20, 1974; February 21, 1974
Judgment	May 20, 1974

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde A

Werk en arbeid — Kontrak om deel van 'n nasionale pad te bou — Buitengewone hoeveelheid veranderings aangebring — Ontwrigting het ontstaan — Oorspronklike kontrak het nie verval nie — Geen nuwe ooreenkoms waarvolgens werknemer geregtig is op billike vergoeding in plaas van kontrakprys nie — Geen stilswyende beding dat werkgewer die veranderings "at reasonable times" moes ingebring het nie — Kontrak — Inbegrepe of stilswyende beding — Wanneer nie geïmpliseer of veronderstel moet word nie — Woorde en uitdrukkings — "At a reasonable time" — Nie dieselfde as "within a reasonable time" nie — Eersgenoemde nie geïmpliseer nie.

Headnote : Kopnota

'n Kontrak om 'n bepaalde werk teen 'n ooreengekome prys te verrig kan van meet af so deur die werkgewer verander word en deur die werknemer uitgevoer word dat gesê kan word dat die oorspronklike kontrak stilswyend vervang is deur 'n nuwe ooreenkoms waarvolgens die werknemer op billike vergoeding vir die werk geregtig is. Dit sal van die feite afhang of soiets gebeur het. Ook gedurende die uitvoering van 'n kontrak om werk teen 'n ooreengekome prys te verrig kan die werknemer instruksies kry, en ook aanvaar, om werk te verrig wat wesenlik nie as deel van die oorspronklike kontrak beskou kan word nie, en die werknemer is vir daardie werk op billike vergoeding geregtig op grond van 'n afsonderlike stilswyende ooreenkoms. Ook dit sal van die feite afhang of so 'n afsonderlike ooreenkoms ontstaan het.

Appellant was die eiser en respondent die verweerder in die Hof a quo. Die partye het 'n kontrak aangegaan waaronder eiser onderneem het om 'n deel van 'n nasionale pad te bou. Namens eiser is aansoek gedoen om sekere verklarende bevele. Gedurende die uitvoering van die kontrak het eiser opdrag ontvang om 'n buitengewone hoeveelheid veranderings aan te bring wat in sekere gevalle ontwrigting meegebring het. Namens eiser is aangevoer dat, hoewel elke verandering binne die bestek van die kontrak geval het, die kumulatiewe effek van al die veranderings van sodanige aard was dat die oorspronklike kontrak verval het en dat 'n nuwe kontrak stilswyend deur die gedrag van die partye ontstaan het, waarvolgens die eiser op 'n billike vergoeding geregtig is vir al die werk gedoen, d.w.s. vanaf die begin van die uitvoering van die kontrak. Die Hof a quo het beslis dat die veranderings in die oorspronklike kontrak beoog is. In hoër beroep,

Beslis, aangesien eiser tot by die voltooiing van die kontrak hom nog op die oorspronklike kontrak beroep het, dat dit onmoontlik gesê kon word dat die oorspronklike kontrak in sy geheel deur die partye as verval beskou is en 'n nuwe kontrak aangegaan is waaronder verweerder geregtig is op billike vergoeding vir al die gedane werk.

Beslis, verder, dat daar 'n gebrek aan getuienis is dat wat die eiser gebou het nie wesenlik die pad is wat die oorspronklike kontrak beoog het nie.

Beslis, verder, in verband met 'n alternatiewe eis om 'n verklarende bevel dat 'n sekere inbegrepe beding veronderstel moet word waarvolgens eiser geregtig is aan vergoeding vir die ontwrigting wat plaasgevind het om rede dat die ingenieur nie "at reasonable times" sy veranderings ingebring het nie, dat in die samehang van die kontrak die woorde "at a reasonable time" nie dieselfde is as "within a reasonable time" nie, en dat sodanige bevel tereg deur die Hof a quo van die hand gewys is (JANSEN, A.R., en CORBETT, WN. A.R., het afgewyk).

Beslis, verder, dat, by afwesigheid van 'n behoorlike omskrewe bewoording van 'n versweë beding wat, nieteenstaande die uitdruklike bepalings van die kontrak, erken moet word, dit nie die taak van die Appèlhof was nie om op daardie stadium uit te werk watter bewoording so 'n beding moet hê om sowel eiser tevrede te stel as om te voldoen aan die vereistes wat gestel word voordat die beding erken kon word.

Die beslissing in die Transvaalse Provinsiale Afdeling in Alfred McAlpine & Son (Pty.) Ltd. v Transvaal Provincial Administration, bevestig.

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Work and labour — Contract to build a portion of a national road — Exceptional number of variations introduced — Disruption as a result — Original contract not having lapsed — No new agreement in terms whereof contractor entitled to reasonable remuneration instead of contract price — No implied term that owner must introduce the variations "at reasonable times" — Contract — Implied or tacit terms — When not to be implied or presumed — Words and phrases — "At a reasonable time" — Not the same as "within a reasonable time" — Former not implied.

Headnote : Kopnota

A contract to do a specified work for an agreed price can from its very beginning be so altered by the owner and carried out by the contractor that it can be said that for the original contract there was tacitly substituted a new agreement in terms whereof the contractor was entitled to reasonable remuneration for the work. It will depend on the facts whether that has occurred. Also during the execution of a contract to do work for an an agreed price the contractor can receive, and also accept, instructions to do work which cannot really be regarded as part of the original contract, and the contractor is entitled to reasonable remuneration for that work on the ground of a separate tacit agreement. It will also in this case depend on the facts whether such a separate agreement came into existence.

Appellant was the plaintiff and respondent the defendant in the Court a quo. The parties entered into a contract in terms whereof plaintiff had undertaken to build a portion of a national road. Certain declaratory orders were applied for on the plaintiff's behalf. During the execution of the contract the contractor had received instructions to introduce an exceptionally

1974 (3) SA p507

large number of alterations which in certain cases had caused disruption. On plaintiff's behalf it was alleged that, although each alteration had fallen within the scope of the contract, the cumulative effect of all the alterations was of such a nature that the original contract had lapsed and a new contract had arisen impliedly through the conduct of the parties, in terms whereof the plaintiff was entitled to reasonable remuneration for all the work done, i.e. from the commencement of the execution of the contract. The Court a quo had held that the variations had been envisaged in the original contract. In an appeal,

Held, as the plaintiff right up to the completion of the contract had still relied on the original contract, that it could not possibly be said that the original contract in its entirety had been regarded by the parties as having lapsed and that a new contract had been entered into in terms whereof defendant was entitled to reasonable remuneration for all the work done.

Held, further, that there was a lack of evidence that what the plaintiff had built was not substantially the road which the contract envisaged.

Held, further, as to an alternative claim for an order declaring that a certain implied term had to be assumed in terms whereof plaintiff was entitled to compensation for the disruption which had occurred because the engineer had not introduced his variations "at reasonable times", that "at a reasonable time" was not the same as "within a reasonable time" and that such claim had rightly been rejected by the Court a quo (JANSEN, J.A., and CORBETT, A.J.A., dissenting).

Held, further, that in the absence of a properly defined wording of an implied term which, notwithstanding the express provisions of the contract, had to be acknowledged, it was not the duty of the Appeal Court at that stage to work out what wording such a term must have in order to satisfy the plaintiff as well as comply with the stated requirements before the term could be acknowledged.

The decision in the Transvaal Provincial Division in Alfred McAlpine & Son (Pty.) Ltd. v Transvaal Provincial Administration, confirmed.

Case Information

Appèl teen 'n beslissing in die Transvaalse Provinsiale Afdeling (HIEMSTRA, R.). Die feite en die advokate se betoë blyk uit die E uitsprake van RUMPFF, WN. H.R., en CORBETT, WN. A.R.

1974 (3) SA p508

Eric Morris, S.C. (bygestaan deur D. M. Ettlinger), namens die appellant, het verwys na: Salt Lake City v Smith, (1900) 104 Fed. Rep. 457; Queensland Insurance Co. v Banque Commerciale Africaine, 1946 AD at p. 286; Hudson, Law of Building A Contracts, 10th ed.; Wisbech Rural District Council v Ward, (1928) 2 K.B. 1; Tharsis Sulphur & Copper Co. v McElroy & Sons, (1878) 3 App. Cas. 1040; McCarthy v Visser, 22 S.C. at p. 125; Halsbury, 3rd ed., vol. 3, para. 883; McKenzie, Building Contracts in S.A., 2nd ed.; John H. Pritchard & Associates (Pty.) Ltd. v Thorny Park Estates (Pty.) Ltd., 1967 (2) SA 511; S.A. Warehousing Services (Pty.) Ltd. v South B British Ins. Co. Ltd., 1971 (3) SA 10; S.A.R. & H. v National Bank of S.A., 1924 AD 704; Thorn v Mayor and Commonalty of London, 1 A.C. 120; Sir Lindsay Parkinson v Commissioner of Works, (1950) 1 All E.R. 208 (C.A.); Mullin (Pty.) Ltd v Benade Ltd., 1952 (1) SA 211; Cape Town Municipality v F. Robb & Co. Ltd., 1966 (4) SA 329; Minister C van Landbou-Tegniese Dienste v Scholtz, 1971 (3) SA 188; M'Alpine v The Lanarkshire and Ayrshire Railway Co., (1889) 17 Rettie 113; 27 Sc. L.R. (1889 - 1890) 81; Roberts v The Bury Improvement Commissioners, (1870) L.R. 5 C.P. 310; Neodox Ltd. v The Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Swinton and Pendleburg (Q.B.D. 15th December 1958); Wells v. D Army and Navy Co-operative Society...