Bock & Son (Pty) Ltd v Wisconsin Leather Co

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Rosenow J
• Judgment Date: 16 September 1960
• Citation: 1960 (4) SA 767 (C)
• Hearing Date: 09 September 1960
• Court: Cape Provincial Division

Rosenow, J.:

The petitioner is a company carrying on business as F manufacturers' representatives and having its registered office at Federal Building, Tulbagh Square, Cape Town. The respondent is an unincorporate body carrying on business at Milwaukee 4, Wisconsin, in the United States of America. The petitioner has acted as the respondent's representative and agent in the Union of South Africa for the purpose of canvassing for and procuring orders for the respondent's G products and for the purpose of effecting sales to various leather users in the Union. The petitioner claims that by reason of the performance of its mandate it became entitled to commission in the sum of approximately £715. The petitioner has written to the respondent on several occasions requesting payment of the commission due and has also cabled the H respondent urging compliance with the request contained in the preceding letters. The petitioner states that to none of these letters or cables has it had a reply. Furthermore the petitioner made certain advances in cash on behalf of the respondent in settling and adjusting certain claims, and it is stated that the amount required for such disbursements totals £60 14s. Despite request the respondent has failed to refund the said sum. The petitioner goes on to state that the Flair Shoe Co. (Pty.) Ltd., carrying on business at Salt River, and certain

Rosenow J

other customers of the respondent have complained in respect of goods declared to be inferior to the standard of the sample according to which the original order was placed. The petitioner, as well as these other A companies, intends to institute proceedings against the respondent, but the respondent does not carry on business in the Union of South Africa. However, there is currently a consignment of goods, the property of the respondent, in bond store in the docks at Durban, Natal, comprising side upper leather for shoes valued at approximately £1,300. The petitioner states that there is reason to fear that this consignment of goods may B be returned to the respondent at any time in the near future, and as there are no other attachable goods in South Africa the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss. Application is therefore made to have this consignment of goods attached to found jurisdiction in order to institute proceedings against the respondent for the said sums of £715 and £60 14s. respectively.

C Inasmuch as the petitioner is an incola of...