Delmas Milling v Du Plessis

Last updated

Delmas Milling Co Ltd. v Du Plessis [1] 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.

Contents

Facts

In June 1953, a document was signed, on behalf of Delmas Milling, by JF du Plessis in confirmation. It read as follows:

We beg to confirm the purchase of, 2,750/3,250 Bags

New Season Kidney Beans As Inspected On Farm Strydpan

Price Eighty shillings 80/ - Per Bag Of

Terms 200 lbs. Nett Delivered.

Delivered in good order and condition at Delmas Milling Co.

Mills At Delmas.

For Delivery Up To The 10/7/53.

Failing delivery within the prescribed time the above

price is subject to adjustment.

All deliveries must be in accordance with Grades

specified above.

Please note that all conditions mentioned herein

must be strictly adhered to.

Payment On Delivery

At Mill. [2]

The sections italicised were in writing; the remainder of the document was printed.

In a declaration claiming damages for an alleged breach of contract, Delmas contended that it had, at Du Plessis's request, extended the date of delivery to July 20, 1953, and that Du Plessis, after delivering 1,000 bags of beans, had then refused to deliver the remaining 1,750. The damages claimed were in respect of this balance; the alleged breach was Du Plessis's failure to perform within the prescribed time.

Du Plessis pleaded that, having delivered 1,000 bags before the stipulated date, he was contractually only obliged to deliver the balance when the contract price had been adjusted, and that Delmas had refused to agree on a mutual adjustment. Delmas excepted to this plea and applied to strike out certain portions of it. The disputed clause was the sentence which begins "Failing delivery..."

The Provincial Division dismissed both the exception and the application to strike out.

Findings

Centlivres held [3] that the effect of the disputed clause was to make the contract an option to sell. If the contract was to be construed as one of purchase and sale, the clause must have been inserted for the benefit of the respondent, in which case he could not be said to be taking advantage of his own wrong (in failing to deliver by the stipulated date) when he relied on the clause. The court held further that, as there was no ambiguity in the meaning of the disputed clause, evidence of surrounding circumstances could not affect that meaning.

Schreiner found [4] that the word "purchase" was inconsistent with a mere option to sell, and held that, when there is a serious difficulty in interpreting a contract, and the court is not obliged to decide the matter on exception, it should not do so.

Hoexter held [5] that the exception to the plea had rightly been dismissed on the grounds that the contract could be construed as a mere option to sell, not on the grounds that it was incapable of any other meaning.

The decision in the Provincial Division was thus confirmed.

Interpretation

"It is apparently an abiding problem," noted Schreiner,

to determine where the line is to be drawn between difficulties in the interpretation of a written contract that can and must be solved by linguistic construction only and difficulties which it is permissible to clear away by consideration of surrounding circumstances, as distinguished from facts merely required to identify persons and things mentioned in the contract. [6]

Delmas Milling v Du Plessis is most often cited as precedent in the area of contractual interpretation, with Schreiner's stipulation that there "appear to be three broad classes of evidence" to be used when documents fall to be interpreted: [7]

  1. Where, although there be difficulty in interpretation, "perhaps serious difficulty," it can nevertheless be cleared up by linguistic treatment, this must be done: "The only permissible additional evidence in such cases is of an identificatory nature; such evidence is really not used for interpretation but only to apply the contract to the facts. Such application may, of course, be itself the cause of the difficulty, giving rise to what is sometimes called a latent ambiguity." [8]
  2. If the difficulty cannot be cleared up with sufficient certainty by studying the language, recourse may be had to "surrounding circumstances"—matters probably present to the minds of the parties when they contracted (but not actual negotiations and similar statements): "It is commonly said that the Court is entitled to be informed of all such circumstances in all cases [...]. But this does not mean that if sufficient certainty as to the meaning can be gathered from the language alone it is nevertheless permissible to reach a different result by drawing inferences from the surrounding circumstances. Whether there is sufficient certainty in the language of even very badly drafted contracts to make it unnecessary and therefore wrong to draw inferences from the surrounding circumstances is a matter of individual judicial opinion on each case."
  3. The third and final class is where even the use of surrounding circumstances does not provide "sufficient certainty." These are cases of ambiguity in the narrow sense: After surrounding circumstances have been considered, there is still no substantial balance in favour of one meaning over another. Recourse may then be had to what passed between the parties on the subject of the contract. The court should use outside evidence as conservatively as possible - but use it, it must if necessary to reach what seems to be a sufficient degree of certainty as to the right meaning.

See also

Related Research Articles

Parol evidence rule Rule in the common law that governs what kinds of evidence parties to a contract dispute can introduce

The parol evidence rule is a rule in the Anglo-American common law that governs what kinds of evidence parties to a contract dispute can introduce when trying to determine the specific terms of a contract. The rule also prevents parties who have reduced their agreement to a final written document from later introducing other evidence, such as the content of oral discussions from earlier in the negotiation process, as evidence of a different intent as to the terms of the contract. The rule provides that "extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to vary a written contract". The term "parol" derives from the Anglo-Norman French parol or parole, meaning "word of mouth" or "verbal", and in medieval times referred to oral pleadings in a court case.

<i>George Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd</i>

George Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd [1982] EWCA Civ 5 and [1983] 2 AC 803 is a case concerning the sale of goods and exclusion clauses. It was decided under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the Sale of Goods Act 1979.

<i>Georgia, Florida, & Alabama Railway Co. v. Blish Milling Co.</i> United States Supreme Court case

Georgia, Florida, & Alabama Railway Co. v. Blish Milling Co., 241 U.S. 190 (1916), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Affreightment is a legal term relating to shipping.

Interpreting contracts in English law is an area of English contract law, which concerns how the courts decide what an agreement means. It is settled law that the process is based on the objective view of a reasonable person, given the context in which the contracting parties made their agreement. This approach marks a break with previous a more rigid modes of interpretation before the 1970s, where courts paid closer attention to the formal expression of the parties' intentions and took more of a literal view of what they had said.

<i>City and Westminster Properties (1934) Ltd v Mudd</i>

City and Westminster Properties (1934) Ltd v Mudd [1959] Ch 129 is an English contract law case, regarding the parol evidence rule. It illustrates one of the large exceptions, that a written document is not deemed to be exhaustive of the parties intentions when there is clear evidence of a collateral contract. It shows that even evidence from outside a written agreement may contradict evidence inside it.

Cooper Manufacturing Co. v. Ferguson, 113 U.S. 727 (1885), was a suit regarding the legitimacy of a sale of a steam engine and other machinery in the State of Ohio.

South African contract law

South African contract law is "essentially a modernized version of the Roman-Dutch law of contract", which is itself 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.

Joubert v Enslin is an important case in South African contract law, heard in the Cape Town Appellate Division on July 8, 9, and 22, 1910.

Hansen, Schrader & Co. v De Gasperi is an important case in South African contract law. It was heard by Solomon J in the Witwatersrand High Court from April 15 to 16, 1903.

Van der Westhuizen v Arnold is an important case in South African contract law, heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal on 22 February 2002, with judgment handed down on 29 August.

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.

Barkhuizen v Napier is an important case in South African contract law, decided by the Constitutional Court on 4 April 2007, having been heard on 4 May 2006. The judges were Langa CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Madala J, Mokgoro J, Ngcobo J, Nkabinde J, O'Regan J, Sachs J, Skweyiya J, Van Der Westhuizen J and Yacoob J.

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.

First National Bank of SA Ltd v Lynn NO and Others is an important case in South African contract law, especially in the area of cession. It was heard in the Appellate Division by Joubert JA, Nestadt JA, Van den Heever JA, Olivier JA and Van Coller AJA on 19 September 1995, with judgment passed on 29 November. M. Tselentis SC was counsel for the appellant; MJD Wallis SC appeared for the respondents.

Aucamp v Morton 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.

<i>Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank</i>

Rainy Sky SA and others v Kookmin Bank is an English contract law case concerning interpretation of contracts. The Supreme Court confirmed the principle laid down in Wickman v Schuler that, if the words of a contract have ambiguous meanings, the court will interpret it in a manner that most accords with "business common sense". There is no requirement for a party to prove that the alternative interpretation is entirely unreasonable.

The South African law of sale is an area of the legal system in that country that describes rules applicable to a contract of sale, generally described as a contract whereby one person agrees to deliver to another the free possession of a thing in return for a price in money.

Henry Allan Fagan was the Chief Justice of South Africa from 1957 to 1959 and previously a Member of Parliament and the Minister of Native Affairs in J. B. M. Hertzog's government. Fagan had been an early supporter of the Afrikaans language movement and a noted Afrikaans playwright and novelist. Though he was a significant figure in the rise of Afrikaner nationalism and a long-term member of the Broederbond, he later became an important opponent of Hendrik Verwoerd's National Party and is best known for the report of the Fagan Commission, whose relatively liberal approach to racial integration amounted to the Smuts government's last, doomed stand against the policy of apartheid.

<i>Arnold v Britton</i>

Arnold v Britton[2013] EWCA Civ 902 is an English contract law case on implied terms.

References

Books

Cases

Notes

  1. ↑ 1955 (3) SA 447 (A).
  2. ↑ Quoted at 450C-F.
  3. ↑ Van Den Heever concurring.
  4. ↑ Hoexter and Fagan concurring.
  5. ↑ Schreiner and Fagan concurring
  6. ↑ 453H-454A.
  7. ↑ 454E.
  8. ↑ 454F-G.
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.