SA Sentrale Ko-op Graanmaatskappy Bpk v Shifren en Andere
Jurisdiction | South Africa |
Judge | Steyn HR, Ogilvie Thompson AR, Williamson AR, Wessels AR en Van Winsen Wn AR |
Judgment Date | 24 September 1964 |
Hearing Date | 03 September 1964 |
Court | Appellate Division |
Steyn, H.R.:
In die Hof benede het die respondente die appellant aangespreek vir ontbinding van 'n huurkontrak, omdat die appellant, in stryd met die kontrak, sy regte sonder die respondente se toestemming, A skriftelik of andersins, aan 'n ander sedeer het, en ook vir uitsetting van die appellant en die sessionaris uit die perseel. Die tersaaklike bepalings van die kontrak, is die volgende:
'11. The tenant shall not have the right to sub-let the said business premises or any portion thereof nor shall he have the right to cede this agreement to any person whomsoever without, in either event, the written consent of the owner first being had and obtained.
19. Any variations in the terms of this agreement as may be agreed upon B between the parties shall be in writing otherwise the same shall be of no force or effect.'
Die appellant het die sessie erken, maar gepleit dat hy gedurende Januarie 1962 met die respondente 'n ooreenkoms aangegaan het luidens welke hulle tot die sessie toegestem het op voorwaarde dat die appellant C instaan vir die betaling van die huurgelde deur die sessionaris. Dit is gemene saak dat die beweerde ooreenkoms 'n mondelinge is. Volgens verdere besonderhede wat deur die appellant verstrek is, het die sessie gedurende Augustus 1961, of in die alternatief, op of omtrent 19 Januarie 1962 plaasgevind. In die pleitskrif, soos voor die Regter a quo gewysig, word in verband met die beweerde ooreenkoms verder aangevoer:
D It was an implied term of the said agreement that the plaintiffs would waive written consent to the said cession and delegation as required by clause 11 of the said lease, as well as the requirements of clause 19.'
Die saak het in eerste instansie voor ERASMUS, R., gedien, en hy het 'n eksepsie dat uit die pleit geen verweer teen die vordering blyk nie, van E die hand gewys. Hy het besluit dat die partye, ten spyte van klousules 11 en 19, geldiglik mondelings kon ooreenkom, ook by wyse van 'n versweë beding, dat mondelinge toestemming tot die sessie voldoende sou wees. Daarna is die geding voor POTGIETER, R., voortgesit. Voor hom het die vraag ontstaan of die getuienis wat die appellant ter stawing van F genoemde verweer wou voorlê, toelaatbaar is. Hy moes bygevolg oor dieselfde regsvraag as ERASMUS, R., besluit. Hy het tot die teenoorgestelde gevolgtrekking gekom en die getuienis ontoelaatbaar verklaar.
Voor hierdie Hof is in oorweging gegee dat die regsvraag in 'n enigsins G gewysigde vorm gestel moet word. Dit is nl. betoog dat, vir sover beweer word dat die sessie gedurende Augustus 1961, d.w.s. voor die ooreenkoms in Januarie 1962, plaasgevind het, die vraag eintlik is of gemelde bepalings in die kontrak die respondente verhinder om by wyse van 'n versweë mondelinge beding afstand te doen van hul reg om die kontrak te kanselleer op grond van 'n sessie sonder skriftelike H toestemming. Dit sou dan eintlik, wat 'n sessie op die vroeër datum betref, daarop...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Botha (Now Griessel) and Another v Finanscredit (Pty) Ltd
...89 (W); Federated Timbers (Pretoria) (Pty) Ltd v Fourie 1978 (1) SA 292 (T); SA Sentrale Ko-op Graanmaatskappy Bpk v Shifren en Andere 1964 (4) SA 760 (A); Impala Distributors v Taunus Chemical Manufacturing Co (Pty) Ltd 1975 (3) SA 273 (T); Clemans v Russon Bros (Pty) Ltd 1970 (3) SA 686 (......
-
Telcordia Technologies Inc v Telkom SA Ltd
...for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration 2007 (1) SA 576 (SCA): compared SA Sentrale Ko-op Graanmaatskappy Bpk v Shifren en Andere 1964 (4) SA 760 (A): applied E Shill v Milner 1937 AD 101: referred South African Jewish Board of Deputies v Sutherland NO and Others 2004 (4) SA 368 (W): di......
-
Brisley v Drotsky
...AR, Streicher AR en Brand AR, Cameron AR samestemmend: Die beginsel in SA Sentrale Ko-op Graanmaatskappy E Bpk v Shifren en Andere 1964 (4) SA 760 (A) neergelê dat 'n beding ('n verskansingsklousule) in 'n skriftelike kontrak wat bepaal dat alle wysigings van die kontrak aan bepaalde formal......
-
Identifying the missing link in section 81(1)(d)(iii) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008: A case for innovative approach to handling solvent companies overwhelmed by deadlock
...para 32.46 The Shifren pr inciple originates from the Appellate decision of SA Sentrale Ko-op Graanmaatskappy Bpk v Shifren en Andere 1964 (4) SA 760 (A). This principle as set out in Brisley v Drotsky 2002 (4) SA 1 (SCA) is a principle where ‘contracting parties may validly agree in writin......
-
Botha (Now Griessel) and Another v Finanscredit (Pty) Ltd
...89 (W); Federated Timbers (Pretoria) (Pty) Ltd v Fourie 1978 (1) SA 292 (T); SA Sentrale Ko-op Graanmaatskappy Bpk v Shifren en Andere 1964 (4) SA 760 (A); Impala Distributors v Taunus Chemical Manufacturing Co (Pty) Ltd 1975 (3) SA 273 (T); Clemans v Russon Bros (Pty) Ltd 1970 (3) SA 686 (......
-
Telcordia Technologies Inc v Telkom SA Ltd
...for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration 2007 (1) SA 576 (SCA): compared SA Sentrale Ko-op Graanmaatskappy Bpk v Shifren en Andere 1964 (4) SA 760 (A): applied E Shill v Milner 1937 AD 101: referred South African Jewish Board of Deputies v Sutherland NO and Others 2004 (4) SA 368 (W): di......
-
Brisley v Drotsky
...AR, Streicher AR en Brand AR, Cameron AR samestemmend: Die beginsel in SA Sentrale Ko-op Graanmaatskappy E Bpk v Shifren en Andere 1964 (4) SA 760 (A) neergelê dat 'n beding ('n verskansingsklousule) in 'n skriftelike kontrak wat bepaal dat alle wysigings van die kontrak aan bepaalde formal......
-
Telcordia Technologies Inc v Telkom SA Ltd
...for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration 2007 (1) SA 576 (SCA): compared SA Sentrale Ko-op Graanmaatskappy Bpk v Shifren en Andere 1964 (4) SA 760 (A): applied E Shill v Milner 1937 AD 101: referred South African Jewish Board of Deputies v Sutherland NO and Others 2004 (4) SA 368 (W): di......
-
When Settlements Are Not Settlements
...claim, the defendants disputed their liability from the outset. Footnotes 1. SA Sentrale Ko-op Graanmaatskappy Bpk v Shifren en Andere 1964 (4) SA 760 (A) 2. Spring Forest Trading 599 CC v Wilberry (Pty) Ltd t/a Ecowash and Another (SCA) (unreported case no 725/13, The content of this artic......
-
No oral modification clauses under English law
...contrast, the position in South Africa was established many years ago in the matter of SA Sentrale Ko-op Graanmaatskappy Bpk v Shifren 1964 (4) SA 760 (A). This judgment asserts that under a South African law governed agreement, contracting parties can limit their future contractual freedom......
-
Identifying the missing link in section 81(1)(d)(iii) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008: A case for innovative approach to handling solvent companies overwhelmed by deadlock
...para 32.46 The Shifren pr inciple originates from the Appellate decision of SA Sentrale Ko-op Graanmaatskappy Bpk v Shifren en Andere 1964 (4) SA 760 (A). This principle as set out in Brisley v Drotsky 2002 (4) SA 1 (SCA) is a principle where ‘contracting parties may validly agree in writin......
-
Die Integrasiereël in die Suid-Afrikaanse Kontraktereg
...v Collins 1938 TPD 458; Joubert v Steenk amp 1909 TS 169 28 Sien byvoorbeeld SA S entrale Ko-op Gr aanmaatskap py Bpk v Shifren 1964 4 SA 760 (A); Pelser v Smith 1979 3 SA 687 (T); Oceanair (Natal) Pty Ltd v Sher 1980 1 SA 317 (D) 324; Brisley v Drotsky 2002 4 SA 1 (HHA); Impala Di stributo......
-
Assessing the efficacy of forum selection agreements in Commonwealth Africa
...of fair ness in consumer contracts’ (2015) 27 SA Merc LJ 191 at 191–192. 59 SA Sentrale Ko-op Graan Maatskappy Bpk v Shifren en Andere 1964 (4) SA 760 (A); Roffey v Catterall, Edwards & Goudre (Pty) Ltd 1977 (4) SA 494 (N); Basson v Chilwan 1993 (3) SA 742 (A). See also Bhana, D. & Pieterse......
-
The Role of Good Faith, Equity and Fairness in the South African Law of Contract: A Further Instalment
...in a dictum of that quintessential apartheid judge, Chief Justice LC Steyn, in SA Sentrale Ko-op Graanmaatskappy Bpk v Shifren [1964 (4) SA 760]; truly a double irony in the light of the jurisprudence of the erstwhile Chief Justice and the restrictive approach to anti-variation clauses adop......
-
Botha (Now Griessel) and Another v Finanscredit (Pty) Ltd
...89 (W); Federated Timbers (Pretoria) (Pty) Ltd v Fourie 1978 (1) SA 292 (T); SA Sentrale Ko-op Graanmaatskappy Bpk v Shifren en Andere 1964 (4) SA 760 (A); Impala Distributors v Taunus Chemical Manufacturing Co (Pty) Ltd 1975 (3) SA 273 (T); Clemans v Russon Bros (Pty) Ltd 1970 (3) SA 686 (......
-
Telcordia Technologies Inc v Telkom SA Ltd
...for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration 2007 (1) SA 576 (SCA): compared SA Sentrale Ko-op Graanmaatskappy Bpk v Shifren en Andere 1964 (4) SA 760 (A): applied E Shill v Milner 1937 AD 101: referred South African Jewish Board of Deputies v Sutherland NO and Others 2004 (4) SA 368 (W): di......
-
Brisley v Drotsky
...AR, Streicher AR en Brand AR, Cameron AR samestemmend: Die beginsel in SA Sentrale Ko-op Graanmaatskappy E Bpk v Shifren en Andere 1964 (4) SA 760 (A) neergelê dat 'n beding ('n verskansingsklousule) in 'n skriftelike kontrak wat bepaal dat alle wysigings van die kontrak aan bepaalde formal......
-
Identifying the missing link in section 81(1)(d)(iii) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008: A case for innovative approach to handling solvent companies overwhelmed by deadlock
...para 32.46 The Shifren pr inciple originates from the Appellate decision of SA Sentrale Ko-op Graanmaatskappy Bpk v Shifren en Andere 1964 (4) SA 760 (A). This principle as set out in Brisley v Drotsky 2002 (4) SA 1 (SCA) is a principle where ‘contracting parties may validly agree in writin......