Aucamp v Morton

Last updated October 25, 2023

Aucamp v Morton^[1] is an important case in South African contract law. It was heard in the Appellate Division by Watermeyer CJ, Centlivres JA, Schreiner JA, Van den Heever JA and Fagan AJA on 7 and 8 June 1949, with judgment on 21 June.

Facts

In the case of a contract involving reciprocal obligations, a breach by one party of one of his obligations will usually only give the other a right to treat the contract as discharged if the breach is one which evinces an intention on the part of the defaulter no longer to be bound by the terms of the contract for the future, or if the defaulter has broken a promise, the fulfilment of which is essential to the continuation of the contractual tie.

In May 1947, Morton purchased a forest and agreed to be bound by a contract between the then-owner Aucamp, whereby the latter had acquired the right, on certain conditions, to fell and remove timber from the forest. In July, Morton directed his agent "G," in charge of felling operations, to discontinue them. After a discussion of the terms of the contract with Aucamp, Morton then cancelled the contract and refused to allow Aucamp access to the forest. Aucamp thereupon instituted an action claiming an order restraining Morton from interfering with his rights under the contract and for damages.

In his plea, Morton set up the defence

that Aucamp had broken the contract; and
that he, Morton, had therefore been justified in denying him access to the forest.

In his claim in reconvention, Morton asked

for an order cancelling the contract; and
for damages.

A Local Division found in favour of Morton and granted an order cancelling the contract, relying on a breach by Aucamp in that he had failed to remove all sound and merchantable timber, of that felled by him, complying with the measurements mentioned in a clause of the contract.

Judgment

In Aucamp's appeal, the Appellate Division held, on the facts, inter alia,

that the amount of timber which had been left to rot did not amount to a large quantity;
that it did no harm to the forest;
that the contract specified no time limit within which felled timber had to be removed;
that Morton himself had attached little importance to this breach;
that it was not due to any deliberate act on the part of the appellant but to neglect on the part of one of his servants; and
that it was very easily remediable.

Neither this breach, accordingly, nor another relating to payment which the trial court had found proved, were sufficient to justify the respondent in regarding the contractual relationship between himself and the appellant as thereby terminated. An order was therefore granted restraining the respondent from preventing Aucamp from lawfully exercising his rights under the agreement.

As to Aucamp's claim for damages, the court held that the correct basis for calculation of them would not be the hypothesis that he had entirely lost the profit which he would have made out of particular contracts which he had lost; it was that his making of profits from cutting and selling timber had been deferred for about 22 months owing to his operations in the forest having been stopped. As Aucap had failed to prove the facts necessary for the court to make a calculation of damages on this basis, it was ruled that there should be judgment of absolution from the instance on this prayer.

The decision of the Eastern District Local Division, in Morton v Aucamp, was thereby reversed.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Breach of contract</span> Type of civil wrong in contract law

Breach of contract is a legal cause of action and a type of civil wrong, in which a binding agreement or bargained-for exchange is not honored by one or more of the parties to the contract by non-performance or interference with the other party's performance. Breach occurs when a party to a contract fails to fulfill its obligation(s), whether partially or wholly, as described in the contract, or communicates an intent to fail the obligation or otherwise appears not to be able to perform its obligation under the contract. Where there is breach of contract, the resulting damages have to be paid to the aggrieved party by the party breaching the contract.

Consequential damages, otherwise known as special damages, are damages that can be proven to have occurred because of the failure of one party to meet a contractual obligation, a breach of contract. From a legal standpoint, an enforceable contract is present when it is: expressed by a valid offer and acceptance, has adequate consideration, mutual assent, capacity, and legality. Consequential damages go beyond the contract itself and into the actions that arise from the failure to fulfill. The type of claim giving rise to the damages, such as whether it is a breach of contract action or tort claim, can affect the rules or calculations associated with a given type of damages. For example, consequential damages are a potential type of expectation damages that arise in contract law.

Baltic Shipping Company v Dillon, the Mikhail Lermontov case, is a leading Australian contract law case, on the incorporation of exclusion clauses and damages for breach of contract or restitution for unjust enrichment.

Southern Foundries (1926) Ltd v Shirlaw [1940] AC 701 is an important English contract law and company law case. In the field of contracts it is well known for MacKinnon LJ's decision in the Court of Appeal, where he put forth the "officious bystander" formulation for determining what terms should be implied into agreements by the courts. In the field of company law, it is known primarily to stand for the principle that damages may be sought for breach of contract by a director even though a contract may de facto constrain the exercise of powers to sack people found in the company's constitution.

C&P Haulage Co Ltd v Middleton [1983] EWCA Civ 5 is an English contract law case, concerning damages for costs incurred by a claimant related to a defendant's breach of contract.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">South African contract law</span> Law about agreements between two or more parties

South African contract law is "essentially a modernized version of the Roman-Dutch law of contract", and is rooted in canon and Roman laws. In the broadest definition, a contract is an agreement two or more parties enter into with the serious intention of creating a legal obligation. Contract law provides a legal framework within which persons can transact business and exchange resources, secure in the knowledge that the law will uphold their agreements and, if necessary, enforce them. The law of contract underpins private enterprise in South Africa and regulates it in the interest of fair dealing.

Dryden v Greater Glasgow Health Board [1992] IRLR 469 is a UK labour law case concerning the contract of employment. It held that a variation of company workplace customs, which are incorporated into individual contracts of employment can take place after a proper consultation without breaching employees' contracts.

Delmas Milling Co Ltd. v Du Plessis is an important case in South African contract law. It was heard in the Appellate Division by Centlivres CJ, Schreiner JA, Van Den Heever JA, Hoexter JA and Fagan JA on June 13, 1955, with judgment handed down on June 20. It was an appeal from a decision in the Transvaal Provincial Division, which it upheld.

Kilburn Appellant v Estate Kilburn Respondent, an important case in South African property law, was heard in the Appellate Division on 15 and 29 September, 1931.

BK Tooling (Edms) Bpk v Scope Precision Engineering (Edms) Bpk, an important case in South African contract law, was heard and decided in the Appellate Division on 16 September 1977 and 15 September 1978 respectively. The case dealt with remedies for the breach of a reciprocal contract in cases where the creditor has been prevented from performing fully his obligations by the failure of the other party's necessary co-operation. The court held that the creditor may in such circumstances claim performance, but that his claim will be subject to a reduction by the costs he saves in not having fully to make his counterperformance.

Coopers & Lybrand and Others v Bryant is an important case in South African contract law, particularly in the area of contractual interpretation. It was heard in the Appellate Division by Joubert JA, EM Grosskopf JA, MT Steyn JA, Nienaber JA and Howie JA on 15 May 1995, with judgment handed down on 30 May.

Government of the Republic of South Africa v Fibrespinners & Weavers (Pty) Ltd is an important case in South African contract law. It was heard in the Appellate Division by Wessels ACJ, Trollip JA, Hofmeyr JA, Miller JA and Trengove AJA on 15 February 1978, with judgment handed down on 21 March.

Weinberg v Olivier is an important case in South African contract law, especially in the area of exemption clauses. It was heard in the Appellate Division on 20 October 1942, with judgment handed down on 26 November. De Wet CJ, Watermeyer JA, Tindall JA, Centlivres JA and Feetham JA were the judges.

Santos Professional Football Club (Pty) Ltd v Igesund and Another is an important case in South African contract law. It was heard in the Cape Provincial Division by Foxcroft J, Moosa J and Selikowitz J on 20 September 2002, with judgment delivered on 27 September. Counsel was the appellant was NM Arendse SC ; for the first respondent appeared SP Rosenberg and for the second MA Albertus SC.

Fourway Haulage SA (Pty) Ltd v SA National Roads Agency Ltd is an important case in South African law. It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal on 5 November 2008, with judgment handed down on 26 November. The judges were Scott JA, Farlam JA, Brand JA, Lewis JA and Jafta JA. JH Dreyer SC appeared for the appellant, and AC Ferreira SC for the respondent.

Minister of Police v Rabie is an important case in the South African law of delict. It was heard in the Appellate Division on September 3, 1984, with judgment handed down on September 27, 1985. The presiding officers were Jansen JA, Joubert JA, Cillié JA, Van Heerden JA and Vivier AJA. The appellant was represented by the State Attorney, Johannesburg. The respondent's attorneys were Mather & Sim, Johannesburg, and McIntyre & Van der Post, Bloemfontein.

Kragga Kamma Estates CC and Another v Flanagan is an important case in the South African law of contract, an appeal from a decision in the South Eastern Cape Local Division by Jansen J. It was heard in the Appellate Division on August 19, 1994, with judgement handed down on September 29. The presiding officers were EM Grosskopf JA, Nestadt JA, Kumleben JA, Howie JA and Nicholas AJA. The appellants' attorneys were Tobie Oosthuizen, Port Elizabeth, and Webbers, Bloemfontein. The respondent's attorneys were Jankelowitz, Kerbel & Schärges, Port Elizabeth, and Lovius-Block, Bloemfontein. HJ van der Linde appeared for the appellants; JRG Buchanan SC for the respondent.

Murray v Minister of Defence is an important case in South African labour law. An appeal from a decision in the Cape Provincial Division by Yekiso J, it was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on 18 February 2008. Mpati DP, Cameron JA, Mlambo JA, Combrinck JA and Cachalia JA presided, handing down judgment on 31 March. Counsel for the appellant was KPCO von Lieres und Wilkau SC ; NJ Treurnicht SC appeared for the respondent. The appellant's attorneys were Van der Spuy Attorneys, Cape Town, and Hill McHardy & Herbst Ing, Bloemfontein. The respondent was represented by the State Attorney, Cape Town, and the State Attorney, Bloemfontein.

Bhasin v Hrynew, 2014 SCC 71 is a leading Canadian contract law case, concerning good faith as a basic organizing principle in contractual relations in Canada's common law jurisdictions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Penalties in English law</span>

Penalties in English law are contractual terms which are not enforceable in the courts because of their penal character. Since at least 1720 it has been accepted as a matter of English contract law that if a provision in a contract constitutes a penalty, then that provision is unenforceable by the parties. However, the test for what constitutes a penalty has evolved over time. The Supreme Court most recently restated the law in relation to contractual penalties in the co-joined appeals of Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi, and ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis.

References

Books

Du Plessis, Jacques, et al. The Law of Contract in South Africa . Edited by Dale Hutchison, Chris-James Pretorius, Mark Townsend and Helena Janisch. Cape Town, Western Cape: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Cases

Aucamp v Morton 1949 (3) SA 611 (A).

Notes

↑ 1949 (3) SA 611 (A).

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[1] 1949 (3) SA 611 (A).

[1]