Van den Berg & Kie Rekenkundige Beamptes v Boomprops 1028 Bk
Jurisdiction | South Africa |
Citation | 1999 (1) SA 780 (T) |
Van den Berg & Kie Rekenkundige Beamptes v Boomprops 1028 BK
1999 (1) SA 780 (T)
1999 (1) SA p780
Citation |
1999 (1) SA 780 (T) |
Case No |
6953/97 |
Court |
Transvaalse Provinsiale Afdeling |
Judge |
van Heerden Wn R |
Heard |
May 26, 1997 |
Judgment |
March 6, 1998 |
Counsel |
JA Coetzee (bygestaan deur J Roux) namens die eiser |
Flynote : Sleutelwoorde
Kontrak — Werklikheid van instemming — Vreesaanjaging — Wat uitmaak — Beginsel van 'economic duress' in Engelse G reg nie deel van Suid-Afrikaanse reg nie.
Headnote : Kopnota
Die verteenwoordiger van die verweerder, B, het 'n ooreenkoms aangegaan met V, die verteenwoordiger van die H eiser, om R200 000 aan die eiser te betaal ten opsigte van voorstellingskommissie indien die verweerder 'n plaas van ene D verkoop. Die verweerder het die plaas verkoop en 'n kommissie van R1,9m verdien. Die verweerder het die eiser se aksie gebaseer op hierdie ooreenkoms bestry op grond van vreesaanjaging. Dit is namens die verweerder beweer dat die enigste rede waarom B toegestem het tot die ooreenkoms was dat V geweier het om I sekere belangrike inligting omtrent die plaas aan haar te verskaf en haar gedreig dat, as sy nie toestem nie, hy D sou beïnvloed om nie die plaas deur die verweerder te verkoop nie.
Beslis, dat, alhoewel dit aanvaar was dat die Engelsregtelike begrip van 'duress of goods' in ooreenstemming met Suid-Afrikaanse reg was, die beginsels van 'economic duress' in die Engelse reg nie deel van Suid-Afrikaanse reg was nie. (Op 792F--G en 792I--J.) J
1999 (1) SA p781
Beslis, verder, dat die omstandighede van die onderhawige geval nie neergekom het op sogenaamde 'economic A duress' soos beskryf in die Engelse reg nie. (Op 793A/B--B.)
Beslis, verder, dat die verweerder hom nie van die bewyslas gekwyt het om te bewys dat V gedreig het om D te beïnvloed om nie die plaas deur die verweerder te verkoop nie. (Op 794G.)
Beslis, verder, dat dit aanvaar kon word dat daar by die aangaan van die gemelde ooreenkoms tussen die eiser en B die verweerder 'n sekere mate van kommersiële en/of finansiële druk op B was. Die meeste, indien nie alle besigheidstransaksies nie, het egter gepaard gegaan met ekonomiese en finansiële druk. B het haar tydens die onderhandelinge met V in 'n situasie bevind dat sy binne bereik was van 'n buitengewone groot kommissie en 'n finansiële besluit moes geneem het. Sy het die bedrag van R200 000 as 'n aanvaarbare prys beskou gesien die C bedrag van die uiteindelike kommissie. Die weerhouding van die inligting deur V tensy B hom vergoed kon nie neergekom het op onregmatige optrede van sy kant of contra bonos mores gewees het nie. (Op 795E--I/J.)
Flynote : Sleutelwoorde
Contract — Reality of consent — Duress — What constitutes — English law principle of 'economic duress' not part of South African law.
Headnote : Kopnota
The defendant's representative, B, entered into an agreement with V, the representative of the plaintiff, to pay the E plaintiff R200 000 as introduction commission in the event of the defendant selling a farm of one D. The defendant did sell the farm and earned a commission of R1,9m. The defendant opposed an action based on the agreement brought by the plaintiff on the grounds of duress. It was alleged on behalf of the defendant that the only reason why B consented to the agreement was that V had refused to provide her with certain important F information about the farm and threatened her that, if she did not agree, he would influence D not to sell the farm through the defendant.
Held, that, although it had been accepted that the English law concept of 'duress of goods' was in harmony with South African law, the principle of 'economic duress' in English law was not part of South African law. (At G 792F--G and 792I--J.)
Held, further, that the circumstances of the present matter did not amount to the so-called 'economic duress' as described in English law. (At 793A/B--B.)
Held, further, that the defendant had not discharged the onus of proving that V had threatened to influence D not so sell the farm through the defendant. (At 794G.) H
Held, further, that it could be accepted that when the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant was concluded there had been a certain degree of commercial and/or financial pressure on B. The majority, if not all, business transactions were accompanied by economic and financial pressure. B had reached a situation during the negotiations with V where she was within reach of an unusually large commission and had to take a financial I decision. She had viewed R200 000 as an acceptable price, seen in the light of the eventual commission. The withholding of the information by V unless B compensated him could not amount to an unlawful action on his part or be contra bonos mores. (At 795E--I/J.) J
1999 (1) SA p782
Cases Considered
Aantekeninge/Annotations A
Gerapporteerde sake/Reported cases
Arend and Another v Astra Furnishers (Pty) Ltd 1974 (1) SA 298 (C): dictum op/at 306 gevolg/followed
Atlas Express Ltd v Kafco (Importers and Distributors) Ltd [1989] 1 All ER 641 (QB): oorweeg/considered B
Bank of Lisbon and South Africa Ltd v De Ornelas 1988 (3) SA 580 (A): verwys na/referred to
Broodryk v Smuts NO 1942 TPD 47: dictum op/at 51 gevolg/followed
CTN Cash and Carry Ltd v Gallaher Ltd [1994] 4 All ER 714 (CA): verwys na/referred to
Hendricks v Barnett 1975 (1) SA 765 (N): na verwys/referred to C
Kapp v T C Valuta (Pty) Ltd 1975 (3) SA 283 (T): na verwys/referred to
Kruger v Sekretaris van Binnelandse Inkomste 1973 (1) SA 394 (A): oorweeg/considered
Lloyds Bank Ltd v Bundy [1975] QB 339 (CA) ([1974] 3 All ER 757): na verwys/referred to
Machanick Steel & Fencing (Pty) Ltd v Wesrhodan (Pty) Ltd; Machanick Steel & Fencing (Pty) Ltd v D Transvaal Cold Rolling (Pty) Ltd 1979 (1) SA 265 (W): dictum op/at 271 gevolg/followed
Malilang and Others v MV Houda Pearl 1986 (2) SA 714 (A): onderskei/distinguished
Pao On and Others v Lau Yiu and Another [1979] 3 All ER 65 (PC): oorweeg/considered E
Paragon Business Forms (Pty) Ltd v Du Preez 1994 (1) SA 434 (SE): dictum op/at 439 gevolg/followed
Preller and Others v Jordaan 1956 (1) SA 483 (A): toegepas/applied
Regal v African Superslate (Pty) Ltd 1963 (1) SA 102 (A): toegepas/applied
Savvides v Savvides and Others 1986 (2) SA 325 (T): dictum op/at 330B gevolg/followed F
Union Government (Minister of Finance) v Gowar 1915 AD 426: oorweeg/considered
White Bros v Treasurer-General (1883) 2 SC 322: oorweeg/considered.
Case Information
Siviele verhoor in 'n aksie vir die betaling van sekere gelde ingevolge 'n ooreenkoms. Die feite blyk uit die G uitspraak.
J A Coetzee SC (bygestaan deur J Roux) namens die eiser.
N Kades SC namens die verweerder.
Cur adv vult.
Postea (Maart 6). H
Judgment
Van den Heever WN R:
Aan die oewers van die Krokodilrivier, in Hectorspruit, lê 'n plaas genaamd Lodwichs Lust van ongeveer 3 800 hektaar. Dit grens vir ongeveer 12 km ver aan die rivier en die grond oorliggend aan die I rivier is deel van die Kruger Wildtuin. Dit is 'n goedontwikkelde plaas en vanweë sy ligging 'n baie waardevolle eiendom. Dit het behoort aan 'n mnr en me De Villiers wat voltyds daarop geboer het en beheer oor die eiendom uitgeoefen het deur middel van 'n private maatskappy bekend as Lodwichs Lust Ondernemings (Edms) Bpk. Na mnr De Villiers se oorlye het me De Villiers voortgegaan met die boerderybedrywighede op die plaas deur gebruik te maak van voormanne. J
1999 (1) SA p783
Van den Heever WnR
Die boerdery het egter agteruitgegaan en het begin verwaarloos en sy het besluit om die plaas te verkoop. Sy wou A een duisend hektaar wat aan die Krokodilrivier grens behou vir haar persoonlike gebruik en het aan mnr Van den Berg, 'n vriend en vertroueling, opdrag gegee om toe te sien dat die nodige onderverdeling gedoen word en dat die restant van die plaas verkoop word. Die koopprys moes 'n netto bedrag van R12 miljoen bedra het. B
Die hele plaas, sonder die uitsluiting van die duisend hektaar, is eventueel op 25 Maart 1996 verkoop aan Kingsland Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd vir 'n bedrag van R19 800 000. Dit is gemeensaak dat die verweerder, as eiendomsagente, die effektiewe oorsaak van hierdie verkooptransaksie was en dat dit 'n kommissie ten bedrae van C R1 900 000 ontvang het op 1 Oktober 1996.
Die eiser dagvaar die verweerder vir betaling van die bedrag van R200 000 op sterkte van 'n mondelinge ooreenkoms, aangegaan tussen die partye op 25 April 1995, ingevolge waarvan die verweerder onderneem het om, ingeval 'n koper deur bemiddeling van die verweerder die plaas Lodwichs Lust koop en die verweerder kommissie D op die verkooptransaksie ontvang, aan die eiser 'n bedrag van R200 000 te betaal.
Die ooreenkoms was mondeling, maar is later skriftelik deur die verweerder bevestig en die skriftelike bevestiging daarvan lui soos volg:
'Geagte meneer E
Verkoop van plaas ''Lodwichs Lust'' - eienaar De Villiers
Ons telefoongesprek ivm bogenoemde verwys.
Ek bevestig hiermee dat indien bogenoemde eiendom deur Boom Props Properties verkoop word en suksesvol getransporteer word in die naam van ons koper 'n bedrag van R200 000 (twee honderd duisend rand) ten opsigte van F voorstellingskommissie oorbetaal sal word aan mnre Van den Berg en Kie. Genoemde bedrag sal binne sewe dae nadat kommissie deur Boom Props Properties ontvang is betaal word.
Die uwe
Brian Monteith'
Hierdie brief is onderteken deur me Joey Bekker ('Bekker'). Bekker en Monteith het sedertdien in die huwelik G getree en sy staan tans bekend as me Joey Monteith.
Die geskilpunt in die saak kan gereduseer word tot die verweerder se pleit ten aansien van hierdie ooreenkoms wat soos volg lui:
In or about April 1995, the defendant, then represented by Joey Bekker (now...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Analyses: The Inducement of a Contract by ‘Duress of Goods’ – A Reappraisal
...at 551I-J; Benkenstein v Neisius & Others 1997 (4) SA 835 (C) at 845F-G; Van den Berg & Kie Rekenkundige Beamptes v Boomprops 1028 BK 1999 (1) SA 780 (T) at 784G-H; BOE Bank Bpk v Van Zyl 1999 (3) SA 813 (C) at 825E-G; BOE Bank Bpk v Van Zyl 2002 (5) SA 165 (C) at 177B-C.)History shows, how......
-
Medscheme Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Another v Bhamjee
...Santam Bpk v Biddulph 2004 (5) SA 586 (SCA): dictum in para [16] applied Van den Berg & Kie Rekenkundige Beamptes v Boomprops 1028 BK 1999 (1) SA 780 (T): dictum at 795E - 796A C Case Information Appeal against a decision of the Transvaal Provincial Division (R D Claassen J). The facts appe......
-
Medscheme Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Another v Bhamjee
...for A the avoidance of a contract. As pointed out by Van den Heever AJ in Van den Berg & Kie Rekenkundige Beamptes v Boomprops 1028 BK 1999 (1) SA 780 (T), that principle has yet to be authoritatively accepted in our law. [6] While there would seem to be no principled reason why the threat ......
-
Experian South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Haynes and Another
...for the avoidance of G a contract. As pointed out by Van den Heever AJ in Van den Berg & Kie Rekenkundige Beamptes v Boomprops 1028 BK 1999 (1) SA 780 (T), that principle has yet to be authoritatively accepted in our law. While there would seem to be no principled reason why the threat of e......
-
Medscheme Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Another v Bhamjee
...Santam Bpk v Biddulph 2004 (5) SA 586 (SCA): dictum in para [16] applied Van den Berg & Kie Rekenkundige Beamptes v Boomprops 1028 BK 1999 (1) SA 780 (T): dictum at 795E - 796A C Case Information Appeal against a decision of the Transvaal Provincial Division (R D Claassen J). The facts appe......
-
Medscheme Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Another v Bhamjee
...for A the avoidance of a contract. As pointed out by Van den Heever AJ in Van den Berg & Kie Rekenkundige Beamptes v Boomprops 1028 BK 1999 (1) SA 780 (T), that principle has yet to be authoritatively accepted in our law. [6] While there would seem to be no principled reason why the threat ......
-
Experian South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Haynes and Another
...for the avoidance of G a contract. As pointed out by Van den Heever AJ in Van den Berg & Kie Rekenkundige Beamptes v Boomprops 1028 BK 1999 (1) SA 780 (T), that principle has yet to be authoritatively accepted in our law. While there would seem to be no principled reason why the threat of e......
-
New Adventure Investments 19 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Mbatha and Others
...in (1) above. It is quite clear that applicants knew or ought to have known all the time that respondents were labour tenants. They 1999 (1) SA p780 Moloto made no attempts to follow the procedures in the Act. With this knowledge, the applicants must or ought A to have known that their comm......
-
Analyses: The Inducement of a Contract by ‘Duress of Goods’ – A Reappraisal
...at 551I-J; Benkenstein v Neisius & Others 1997 (4) SA 835 (C) at 845F-G; Van den Berg & Kie Rekenkundige Beamptes v Boomprops 1028 BK 1999 (1) SA 780 (T) at 784G-H; BOE Bank Bpk v Van Zyl 1999 (3) SA 813 (C) at 825E-G; BOE Bank Bpk v Van Zyl 2002 (5) SA 165 (C) at 177B-C.)History shows, how......
-
Analyses: The Inducement of a Contract by ‘Duress of Goods’ – A Reappraisal
...at 551I-J; Benkenstein v Neisius & Others 1997 (4) SA 835 (C) at 845F-G; Van den Berg & Kie Rekenkundige Beamptes v Boomprops 1028 BK 1999 (1) SA 780 (T) at 784G-H; BOE Bank Bpk v Van Zyl 1999 (3) SA 813 (C) at 825E-G; BOE Bank Bpk v Van Zyl 2002 (5) SA 165 (C) at 177B-C.)History shows, how......
-
Medscheme Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Another v Bhamjee
...Santam Bpk v Biddulph 2004 (5) SA 586 (SCA): dictum in para [16] applied Van den Berg & Kie Rekenkundige Beamptes v Boomprops 1028 BK 1999 (1) SA 780 (T): dictum at 795E - 796A C Case Information Appeal against a decision of the Transvaal Provincial Division (R D Claassen J). The facts appe......
-
Medscheme Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Another v Bhamjee
...for A the avoidance of a contract. As pointed out by Van den Heever AJ in Van den Berg & Kie Rekenkundige Beamptes v Boomprops 1028 BK 1999 (1) SA 780 (T), that principle has yet to be authoritatively accepted in our law. [6] While there would seem to be no principled reason why the threat ......
-
Experian South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Haynes and Another
...for the avoidance of G a contract. As pointed out by Van den Heever AJ in Van den Berg & Kie Rekenkundige Beamptes v Boomprops 1028 BK 1999 (1) SA 780 (T), that principle has yet to be authoritatively accepted in our law. While there would seem to be no principled reason why the threat of e......