Govan v Skidmore

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Selke J
• Judgment Date: 20 September 1950
• Hearing Date: 20 September 1950
• Court: Natal Provincial Division

G Selke, J.:

This is a trial action in which the plaintiff, John Cunningham Govan, sues the defendant, one W. H. Skidmore, for

(a)

An order rescinding a certain contract whereby the plaintiff bought a house from the defendant for £3,600;

(b)

Judgment for £3,600; and

(c)

H Damages in the sum of £142 1s. 10d.,

or, alternatively to (a), (b) and (c) aforesaid, judgment for the sum of £600 as and for damages.

In outline the case made by plaintiff is that, by a contract dated the 8th April, 1948, the plaintiff purchased this house from the

Selke J

defendant, and that prior to entering into this contract, the defendant and his wife (who was then acting as the defendant's agent), verbally represented to the plaintiff and to the plaintiff's wife (who was then acting as the plaintiff's agent), that the roof of the dwelling on the said property did not leak. The plaintiff alleges that this representation was false and fraudulent, and induced him to enter into A the contract, and that, in truth, the roof leaked badly as plaintiff discovered after entering into occupation of the premises, the construction of the roof being defective; and he goes on to say that the leaky condition of the roof constituted a latent defect rendering the property substantially unfit for the purpose for which it was bought, B namely a dwelling house, and that had he, the plaintiff, known of the defect at the time of the sale, he would not have entered into the contract. The defendant denies the representation alleged by the plaintiff, and, in any event, denies that it induced the purchase, and that the condition of the roof rendered the property substantially unfit C for a dwelling house, or that its condition constituted a latent defect. He further alleges that the roof was not in a leaky condition at the time of the sale. As an alternative to the foregoing ground of claim, the plaintiff alleges that the existence of the aforesaid latent defect was known to the defendant, but was not known to the plaintiff, D at the time of the sale. The defendant contests this ground of claim also, and alleges amongst other things, that the sale was voetstoets; (at the trial it was common cause that the sale was voetstoets.) As a second alternative, and upon the footing that the alleged defects of the roof did not render the property substantially unfit for the purposes E for which it was sold, the plaintiff claims damages in the sum of £600. This claim...