Jurgens Eiendomsagente v Share

JurisdictionSouth Africa
JudgeHoexter AR, Kumleben AR, Nienaber Wn AR
Judgment Date03 September 1990
Citation1990 (4) SA 664 (A)
Hearing Date15 August 1990
CourtAppellate Division

Nienaber Wn AR:

Die appellant is 'n eiendomsagent. Hy was die eiser in die landdroshof sowel as die appellant in die Hof a quo. Wat hy geëis het, was kommissie op 'n transaksie wat hy as eiendomsagent beklink het. D Die transaksie het misluk. So ook sy aksie. En so ook sy appèl. Weliswaar het die appellant (na wie ek voortaan as die eiser sal verwys) 'n koper vir die respondent (die verweerder) se eiendom gevind en het die verweerder, as verkoper, uitdruklik onderneem om aan die eiser kommissie te betaal selfs al sou die koop gekanselleer word. Die koop is E juis nooit geïmplementeer nie omdat 'n aanvaarbare waarborg vir betaling van 'n bepaalde gedeelte van die koopsom nie betyds deur die koper gelewer is nie. Die fout wat die eiser gemaak het, was om die verskaffing van dié waarborg in sy dag- vaarding in die landdroshof as 'n 'voorwaarde' (eerder as 'n tydsbepaling) te bestempel. Dié F etikettering is deur die verweerder in sy pleit erken. So is die saak dan ook in die landdroshof aangevoer. Op daardie grondslag is bevind dat die sogenaamde voorwaarde nie vervul is nie en dat die nie-vervulling van die voorwaarde ook die kommissie-klousule verongeluk het. Op appèl na die Oos-Kaapse Afdeling van die Hooggeregshof is beslis dat die eiser aan die beskrywing van sy eisoorsaak verkneg was en dat die appèl gevolglik moes misluk. En in die laaste instansie is dit, met verlof van G die Hof a quo, ook die vraag voor hierdie Hof.

Die koop is beklink toe sowel ene Smith (as koper) en die verweerder (as verkoper) 'n dokument op 25 Februarie 1984 onderteken het. Die dokument was getiteld 'Offer to purchase', onder die prominente opskrif 'Jurgens Estate Agents', en was deels gedruk en deels in handskrif H voltooi. Die 'Offer to purchase' is aan die verweerder as 'the owner' geadresseer, en lui dat Smith

'hereby offers to purchase through the introduction of Jurgens (the agent), freehold stand No... situate... 3 Thunberg Ave, Francis Evatt Park (the property)... upon the following terms and conditions'

en dan volg die bepalings van die koopkontrak.

I Klousule 2 handel met die betaling van die koopsom van R57000. Dit lui:

'2.

Finance:

(a)

cash deposit in the sum of R1 400 (one thousand four hundred rand paid by PEM on approval) which shall be paid to Jurgens upon... ;

(b)

J a further cash deposit of R... on or before the...;

Nienaber Wn AR

(c)

A R45 600 (...) secured by an approved banker's/building society guarantee/s in favour of the owner or his nominee delivered to the owner's conveyancer upon request provided that the guarantee referred to aforesaid shall not be called for until a bond has been approved in principle in terms of para 3 below, and until the attorneys acting for the building society have received instructions to attend to the B registration of the first mortgage;

(d)

the further sum of R10 000 shall be secured by guarantee acceptable to the owner which shall be furnished by the purchaser upon receipt by the purchaser of the proceeds of the sale of his property referred to (in clause 12 below)/situate erf 1252/19, Kromme Rd, Young Park, provided that in any case such guarantee is furnished by no later than 30 March 1984.

3.

C Special condition:

This sale is conditional on the agent on behalf of the purchaser, or the purchaser being able to obtain approval in principle of a first mortgage bond on the security of the property. Such mortgage bond shall be for the sum of R45 600 (forty five thousand six hundred rand) which amount shall be raised at the prevailing rate of building society interest and on the usual building society terms and conditions. The purchaser hereby undertakes to do all D things necessary and to sign all documents necessary to enable the said agent to fulfil these conditions on the purchaser's behalf.'

Klousule 9 bepaal:

'9.

Commission:

That the owner shall pay the agent's commission which shall be deemed to have been earned upon the acceptance of this offer. In E the event of the cancellation of this sale by either party for whatever reason, the owner shall nevertheless remain liable for payment of said commission to the agent. Should a deposit have been received by the agent from the purchaser, the agent shall be entitled to retain such commission from the deposit in such event.'

F Klousule 10 maak onder meer voorsiening vir 'n lex commissoria:

'10.

Default:

Failure on my part to fulfil any conditions hereof after acceptance will entitle the owner to claim specific performance or cancel the contract and claim damages suffered. Any moneys deposited shall be retained by the owner or his agent on account of liquidated damages until the latter have been assessed.'

G Ten slotte bepaal klousule 12 soos volg:

'12

Other conditions:

This offer is subject to the suspensive conditions: That (1) property 19 Kromme Rd, Young Park, which is sold is registrable and (2) that No 3 Thunberg Road, Francis Evatt Park, is approved by a bank or building society before 1 May 1984.' H

Die aanbod is deur Smith onderteken. Direk daaronder volg die woorde:

'Acceptance by owner

I, the owner of the above property, accept the offer as above and agree to pay Jurgens Estate Agents commission in the sum of R2 500 (two thousand five hundred rand) for effecting the sale, the conveyancing attorney being hereby duly and properly authorised to deduct such I commission from any deposit or from the purchase price on transfer.'

Dit is deur die verweerder onderteken. Teenoor albei handtekeninge verskyn ook dié van 'n werknemer van die eiser, ene Roos, as getuie.

Die wyse van finansiering van die koopsom is ondanks die soms J kriptiese bewoording van die kontrak betreklik duidelik: eerstens, 'n

Nienaber Wn AR

A deposito van R1 400 wat Smith, as werknemer van die Port Elizabethse munisipaliteit by goedkeuring van die transaksie deur die munisipaliteit ('PEM') van laasgenoemde sou verkry; tweedens, 'n bank- of bougenootskapsverband oor die verkoopte eiendom self ten bedrae van R45 600; en derdens, 'n waarborg ten bedrae van R10 000, wat bestem was om uit die opbrengs van die verkoping van Smith se eie eiendom te Young B Park te kom.

Ter uitvoering van hierdie bepalings is goedkeuring vir 'n verband oor die Francis Evatt Park-eiendom vir R47 000 bekom, wat ook die bedrag van die deposito van R1 400 sou dek. Dit het geen probleem opgelewer nie. Die knoop het by die verskaffing voor 30 Maart 1984 van die waarborg vir C R10 000 uit die opbrengs van die verkoping van Smith se Young Park-eiendom gelê.

Die Young Park-eiendom is wel verkoop. Dit het trouens reeds voor sluiting van die gewraakte transaksie tussen die verweerder en Smith D gebeur. Die koper van die Young Park-eiendom was ene Scholtz. Hy was by die Departement van Gemeenskapsbou werksaam. Die Departement sou hom met die finansiering van die koopsom behulpsaam wees. Op 14 Maart 1984 is 'n lening ten bedrae van R21 600 ten opsigte van die Young Park-eiendom aan Scholtz goedgekeur, betaalbaar by oordrag van gemelde eiendom op sy naam.

Met die oog op nakoming van klousule 2(d) van die koopkontrak tussen E die verweerder en Smith is die Departement genader om 'n waarborg ten gunste van die verweerder vir R10 000 te lewer. Die Departement was bereid om dit te doen. Op 30 Maart 1984, die datum in klousule 2(d) vermeld, reik die Departement van Gemeenskapsbou dan ook 'n waarborg uit, gerig aan die verweerder se prokureur, die tersaaklike bepalings F waarvan ooreenkomstig die Departement se gebruiklike bewoording, soos volg gelui het:

'1.

Die bedrag hieronder aangedui word tot u beskikking gehou en sal aan u betaal word, op ontvangs deur my, van skriftelike kennisgewing dat ondervermelde transaksies behoorlik geregistreer is.

2.

G Die Departement behou die reg voor om hierdie waarborg te eniger tyd voor sodanige registrasie te kanselleer deur u skriftelik daarvan kennis te gee. Ingeval hierdie waarborg gekanselleer word, sal die Departement enige stukke wat die Departement of sy prokureur van u mag ontvang het, aan u terugstuur.

3.

Hierdie waarborg

(i)

is geldig vir 'n tydperk van drie maande vanaf die datum hiervan;

(ii)

H is nie verhandelbaar of oordraagbaar nie; en

(iii)

moet aan die Departement oorhandig word teen betaling van genoemde bedrag.'

Die bedrag was R10 000 en die transaksies waarna verwys is, was die kansellasie van alle bestaande verbande oor die Young Park-eiendom en die registrasie van 'n eerste verband daaroor ten bedrae van R21 600 ten I gunste van die Nasionale Behuisingskommissie.

Toe hierdie waarborg dieselfde middag aan die verweerder se prokureur, mnr Odendaal, aangebied is, word dit egter summier deur hom verwerp op grond daarvan dat dit ter keuse van die Departement kanselleerbaar was. Later die aand oorreed die werknemer van die eiser, Roos, die verweerder J egter om 'n dokument te teken waarin hy verklaar:

Nienaber Wn AR

A 'Hiermee erken ek, mnr G C Share, ontvangs en aanvaar ek die waarborg van die Departement van Gemeenskapsbou soos ook gelewer aan mnr Odendaal soos vereis in para 2(d) van bogemelde aanbod om te koop.'

Wat Roos doelbewus nooit aan die verweerder openbaar het nie, was dat Odendaal die waarborg vroeër die dag reeds verwerp het. Wyslik het die eiser hom, gedurende die geding, nooit op dié dokument beroep nie. Roos B het intussen aan sy prinsipaal, Jurgens (die eienaar van die eiser), gerapporteer dat Odendaal die waarborg verwerp het. Op dié stadium was dit vir Jurgens reeds te laat om 'n bankwaarborg te bekom. Wat hy wel gedoen het, was om die verweerder die aand by sy huis te besoek ten einde aan hom persoonlik 'n tjek vir R10 000 te oorhandig, uitgemaak aan die verweerder se prokureur, gedateer 30 Maart 1984, en getrek op C rekening van Jurgens City and Country Supplies, tesame met 'n brief...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
27 practice notes
  • Trinity Asset Management (Pty) Ltd v Grindstone Investments 132 (Pty) Ltd
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...SA 208 (C): referred toJohnson v Hirotec (Pty) Ltd 2000 (4) SA 930 (SCA) ([2000] ZASCA 43):referred toJurgens Eiendomsagente v Share 1990 (4) SA 664 (A) ([1990] ZASCA 81):referred toKalil v Decotex (Pty) Ltd and Another 1988 (1) SA 943 (A): referred toKragga Kamma Estates CC and Another v F......
  • First National Bank of SA Ltd v Lynn NO and Others
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...Co Ltd v Esselen 1954 (1) SA 147 (A) Johnson v Incorporated General Insurances Ltd 1983 (1) SA 318 (A) Jurgens Eiendomsagente v Share 1990 (4) SA 664 (A) E Land- en Landboubank van Suid-Afrika v Die Meester en Andere 1991 (2) SA 761 (A) McNeil v Insolvent Estate of Robertson (1882) 3 NLR 19......
  • First National Bank of SA Ltd v Lynn NO and Others
    • South Africa
    • Appellate Division
    • 29 d3 Novembro d3 1995
    ...Co Ltd v Esselen 1954 (1) SA 147 (A) Johnson v Incorporated General Insurances Ltd 1983 (1) SA 318 (A) Jurgens Eiendomsagente v Share 1990 (4) SA 664 (A) E Land- en Landboubank van Suid-Afrika v Die Meester en Andere 1991 (2) SA 761 (A) McNeil v Insolvent Estate of Robertson (1882) 3 NLR 19......
  • Commissioner, South African Revenue Service v Bosch and Another
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...Dönges NO and Another; Bhana v Dönges NO and Another 1950 (4) SA 653 (A): E dictum at 664G – H applied Jurgens Eiendomsagente v Share 1990 (4) SA 664 (A): referred Minister of Finance v Gin Bros and Goldblatt 1954 (3) SA 7 (O): dictum at 10G – H applied MTK Saagmeule (Pty) Ltd v Killyman Es......
  • Get Started for Free
25 cases
  • Trinity Asset Management (Pty) Ltd v Grindstone Investments 132 (Pty) Ltd
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...SA 208 (C): referred toJohnson v Hirotec (Pty) Ltd 2000 (4) SA 930 (SCA) ([2000] ZASCA 43):referred toJurgens Eiendomsagente v Share 1990 (4) SA 664 (A) ([1990] ZASCA 81):referred toKalil v Decotex (Pty) Ltd and Another 1988 (1) SA 943 (A): referred toKragga Kamma Estates CC and Another v F......
  • First National Bank of SA Ltd v Lynn NO and Others
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...Co Ltd v Esselen 1954 (1) SA 147 (A) Johnson v Incorporated General Insurances Ltd 1983 (1) SA 318 (A) Jurgens Eiendomsagente v Share 1990 (4) SA 664 (A) E Land- en Landboubank van Suid-Afrika v Die Meester en Andere 1991 (2) SA 761 (A) McNeil v Insolvent Estate of Robertson (1882) 3 NLR 19......
  • First National Bank of SA Ltd v Lynn NO and Others
    • South Africa
    • Appellate Division
    • 29 d3 Novembro d3 1995
    ...Co Ltd v Esselen 1954 (1) SA 147 (A) Johnson v Incorporated General Insurances Ltd 1983 (1) SA 318 (A) Jurgens Eiendomsagente v Share 1990 (4) SA 664 (A) E Land- en Landboubank van Suid-Afrika v Die Meester en Andere 1991 (2) SA 761 (A) McNeil v Insolvent Estate of Robertson (1882) 3 NLR 19......
  • Commissioner, South African Revenue Service v Bosch and Another
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...Dönges NO and Another; Bhana v Dönges NO and Another 1950 (4) SA 653 (A): E dictum at 664G – H applied Jurgens Eiendomsagente v Share 1990 (4) SA 664 (A): referred Minister of Finance v Gin Bros and Goldblatt 1954 (3) SA 7 (O): dictum at 10G – H applied MTK Saagmeule (Pty) Ltd v Killyman Es......
  • Get Started for Free
2 books & journal articles