Golden Cape Fruits v Fotoplate

Last updated

Golden Cape Fruits (Pty) Ltd v Fotoplate (Pty) Ltd [1] is an important case in South African contract law, heard in the Cape Provincial Division by Diemont J and Corbett J on 13 February 1973, with judgment handed down on 8 March.

Contents

Facts

In 1971, the appellant, Golden Cape Fruits, decided to have a new brochure printed by photolithographic process. It ordered direct from a specialist photolithographer, the respondent, certain photolithographic plates. These the appellant passed on to the printer, who printed the required number of copies. Owing, however, to an error in the plates, the copies could not be used. Golden Cape Fruits had claimed from Fotoplate the cost of the printing of them, on the basis of either breach of contract or of negligence.

Fotoplate's defence was that the contract was subject to a trade usage which in the circumstances absolved it from liability. This alleged usage was to the effect that Fotoplate would exhibit to Golden Cape Fruits some "rough proofs" of the plates (or positives) for approval, amendment or rejection. If these were approved, as they had been, Fotoplate's obligations under the agreement would be fulfilled by completing and delivering the positives in accordance with the proofs.

Evidence

The evidence disclosed the following:

Judgment

A magistrate's court having granted absolution from the instance, on appeal the Cape Provincial Division held that Fotoplate had failed to discharge the onus of establishing a trade usage to absolve it from liability for breach of contract. Specifically, it had failed to establish

  1. that a trade usage existed in respect of the consequences of the customer's approval of proofs;
  2. that, if there was such usage, it applied to photolithographic positives and related, without qualification, to all errors, including those occurring in aspects not clearly conveyed to the customer; and
  3. that, if the application to photolithographic positives were accepted subject to qualification, the error in the present case was in regard to a

matter clearly conveyed to the customer.

The court held, therefore, that judgment should have been granted for the appellant, in the amount claimed, with costs.

Trade usages

In the area of implied terms, the case is an oft-cited authority on trade usage. To put the position at its lowest, the evidence required to establish a trade usage must be clear, convincing and consistent. It must, moreover, amount to something more than mere opinion. Instances of the usage's having been acted upon should be provided in order to establish the fact of its existence. No rule can be laid down as to the number of witnesses required. This depends very much upon the nature of the usage in question, the character and quality of the witnesses and the extent to which their evidence is placed in issue by other evidence. In the nature of things, the court would not readily act upon the evidence of a single witness, even if uncontradicted: a fortiori if there is a conflict in the evidence.

The judgment of Corbett JA established the requirements for a trade usage. It must

See also

Related Research Articles

<i>Canadian Aero Service Ltd v OMalley</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Canadian Aero Service Ltd v O'Malley, [1974] SCR 592, is a leading civil case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada on corporate director and officer liability.

<i>Williams v Natural Life Health Foods Ltd</i>

Williams v Natural Life Health Foods Ltd[1998] UKHL 17 is an important English tort law, company law and contract law case. It held that for there to be an effective assumption of responsibility, there must be some direct or indirect conveyance that a director had done so, and that a claimant had relied on the information. Otherwise only a company itself, as a separate legal person, would be liable for negligent information.

Holmdene Brickworks (Pty) Ltd v Roberts Construction Co Ltd, decided by Corbett CJ, is an important case in South African contract law, specifically in the area of breach.

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.

Durban's Water Wonderland (Pty) Ltd v Botha is an important case in South African contract law, especially in the area of exemption clauses. It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal on 16 November 1998, with judgment handed down on 27 November. The judges were Van Heerden DCJ, Howie JA, Harms JA, Scott JA and Melunsky AJA. PJ Olsen appeared as counsel for the appellant, and P. Ellis for the respondents.

International Shipping Co (Pty) Ltd v Bentley is an important case in South African law. It was heard in the Appellate Division on 25 and 26 September 1989, with judgment handed down on 10 November. The presiding officers were Corbett CJ, Botha JA, Hefer JA, Smalberger JA and Friedman AJA. The case is especially important in the law of delict, in the area of causation and on the question of the remoteness of damages. An auditor was sued by a financing company for loss caused by negligent misstatements contained in a report by the auditor of a group of companies. This report was misleading: It did not give an accurate picture of the bleak financial situation of the group for which the company was providing financial facilities. The court found that the auditor had acted negligently and unlawfully, and so established factual causation. On appeal, however, it was held that the company's loss was too remote for the auditor to be held liable. The judgment set out the factors relevant to determining whether or not a loss is too remote.

Administrator, Cape, and Another v Ntshwaqela and Others is an important case in South African law, heard in the Appellate Division on 7 November 1989, with judgment handed down on 30 November. Corbett CJ, Hoexter JA, Nestadt JA, Steyn JA and Nicholas AJA.

True Motives 84 (Pty) Ltd v Mahdi and Another is an important case in South African law, heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal on 28 August 2008, with judgment handed down on 3 March 2009. PM Kennedy SC appeared for the appellant. There was no appearance for the first respondent, while AE Franklin SC appeared for the second respondent and PJ Olsen SC for the amicus curiae.

Room Hire Co (Pty) Ltd v Jeppe Street Mansions (Pty) Ltd is an important case in South African law: the leading case, indeed, on disputes of fact. It was heard in the Transvaal Provincial Division on April 28 and 29, 1949, with judgement on July 15. Murray AJP, Ramsbottom J and Blackwell J presided. A. Shacksonvis KC appeared for the appellant, and A. Suzman KC for the respondent. The appellant's attorneys were Schwartz & Goldblatt; the respondent's were Podlashuc, Meintjes, Liebson & Klagsbrun.

Minister of Safety and Security v Luiters is an important case in the South African law of delict. It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on March 7, 2006, with judgment delivered on March 17. Mpati DP, Farlam JA, Navsa JA, Cloete JA and Van Heerden JA presided. RT Williams SC appeared for the appellant and HM Raubenheimer SC for the respondent. The appellant's attorneys were the State Attorneys, Cape Town and Bloemfontein. The respondent's attorneys were Smith & De Jongh, Bellville; Milton de la Harpe, Cape Town; and Honey Attorneys, Bloemfontein. The case was an appeal from a decision in the Cape Provincial Division by Thring J. A subsequent application to appeal it further to the Constitutional Court was rejected.

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.

Soffiantini v Mould is an important case in South African law. An appeal from a decision of Back AJ, it was heard in the Eastern Districts Local Division by Price JP, Jennett J and Wynne J on 30 July 1956. Judgment was handed down on 14 August 1956. The appellant's attorneys were Espin & Espin. The respondent's attorney was LB Green. The case concerned the relationship between landlord and tenant, and confirmed that, under the common law, a landlord is not entitled to enter leased premises without consent. The trespassing landlord can be interdicted.

Automotive II Tooling Systems (Pty) Ltd v Wilkens & others was an important case in South African labour law, in which the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa confirmed the principle that a restraint of trade would be considered unreasonable and contrary to public policy, and thus unenforceable, if it does not protect some legally recognisable interest of the employer and merely seeks to exclude or eliminate competition.

Memory Institute SA CC t/a SA Memory Institute v Hansen and Others is an important case in South African law, heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal. The judges were Harms JA, Schutz JA, Cameron JA, Conradie JA and Heher JA, who heard the case on May 8, 2003, handing down judgment on May 16, 2003. PJ Heymans appeared for the appellant; MH Wessels SC for the respondents.

Administrator, Transvaal v Theletsane is an important case in South African law, heard in an Appellate Division comprising Botha JA, Smalberger JA, MT Steyn JA, FH Grosskopf JA and Nicholas AJA. The case was heard on November 5, 1990; judgment was delivered on November 30. The respondents' attorneys were SV Khampepe, Johannesburg, and EG Cooper & Sons, Bloemfontein. The appellants had the State Attorney.

Wightman t/a JW Construction v Headfour (Pty) Ltd and Another is an important case in South African law, heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal on February 27, 2008. Mpati DP, Cameron JA, Heher JA, Ponnan JA and Mhlantla AJA presided. Judgment was handed down on March 10, 2008. Counsel for the appellant was EJJ Spamer; SC Goddard appeared for the respondents. The appellant's attorneys were Kyriacos & Co, Cape Town, and Webbers, Bloemfontein. The respondents' Attorneys were EQM Hunter, Cape Town, and Honey Attorneys, Bloemfontein. The case was an appeal from a decision of the full bench in the Cape Provincial Division regarding spoliation.

Plascon-Evans Paints Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd is an important case in South African law, particularly in the area of civil procedure and trade marks.

Peterson v Minister of Safety and Security is an important case in South African criminal law. For the appellant appeared J Whitehead SC, instructed by JL Martinson & Company, Cape Town; for the respondents, A Schippers SC and S O'Brien, instructed by the State Attorney, Cape Town.

Chartaprops 16 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Silberman is an important case in the South African law of agency. It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal by Scott JA, Nugent JA, Ponnan JA, Maya JA and Leach AJA on May 14, 2008. They delivered judgment on September 25. The case was an appeal from a decision in the Witwatersrand Local Division by Boruchowitz J.

<i>Berry v CCL Secure Ltd</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Benoy Berry & Global Secure Currency Limited v CCL Secure Pty Ltd is a decision of the High Court of Australia, concerning the assessment of damages for deliberately deceptive conduct under s82 of the Trade Practices Act.

References

Books

Cases

Notes

  1. ↑ 1973 (2) SA 642 (C).
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.