Government of the Republic of South Africa v Fibrespinners & Weavers

Last updated

Government of the Republic of South Africa v Fibrespinners & Weavers (Pty) Ltd [1] 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.

Contents

Facts

The appellant government of South Africa had instituted action in a Local Division against the respondent, Fibrespinners & Weavers, for damages for the loss of certain grainbags which had been stored by the respondent for reward in terms of a contract of deposit. In terms of a letter written by the government, replacing the terms of the original contract, Fibrespinners was, in consideration for arranging and maintaining, inter alia, an all-risks insurance policy covering the grainbags, "absolved from all responsibility for loss of or damage howsoever arising in respect of" the grainbags "whilst in the care of your company and in or upon any premises owned or used by your company."

Over a period of time a quantity of the grainbags had been stolen by three persons, one of whom was Fibrespinners' chief security officer. The government averred that Fibrespinners was liable on the following alternative grounds:

  1. by reason of its breach of contract in failing, upon demand, to deliver to the government the grainbags in question;
  2. by reason of gross negligence;
  3. by reason of negligence; or
  4. by reason of vicarious responsibility for the theft committed by its servant.

Fibrespinners successfully excepted to the claim on the grounds that the averments in the particulars were insufficient to sustain the cause of action.

Arguments

In an appeal, the government contended

  1. that the exemption clause in the letter, which did not in terms refer to negligence, had to be construed in accordance with the contra proferentem rule as not relating to liability for loss or damage caused by negligence, but only to liability which arose from some other cause, such as breach of contract, and that the exemption clause applied only where compensation was claimed on a contractual basis, not a delictual basis; and
  2. that the exemption clause ought to be so construed as not to apply to responsibility for loss or damage caused by the bailee's gross negligence.

Judgment

The court held that the intention of the parties in regard to the exemption clause was to substitute in the government's favour a right of recourse against the insurance company in the place of such rights of recourse as appellant had against Fibrespinners as bailee; the insurance policy in question covered the government for loss of the grainbags as a result of theft or Fibrespinners' negligence or that of its employees.

The court held further that in law Fibrespinners was liable to compensate the government if the loss or damage was caused

  1. by its own wilful wrongdoing or negligent conduct; or
  2. possibly by the wilful wrongdoing (i.e. theft) or negligent conduct on the part of its servants, acting in the scope, and within the course, of their employment as such.

The words of the exemption were, the court found, prima facie sufficiently comprehensive in their ordinary meaning to bring under the protective umbrella of the exemption the liability for the loss or damage in 1. or 2. above.

As to the government's contention that the possibility that negligent conduct on the part of the bailee might give rise to alternative causes of action, the one based on contract and the other on delict, the court ruled that this could not render the exemption clause ambiguous and thereby necessitate the use of aids to interpretation. Fibrespinners only required, and could only be granted, exemption from liability for any loss or damage caused by unintentional unlawful conduct: that is, for any loss or damage caused by its breach of contract or by negligence on its part or the part of its employees. It was that exemption which the widely worded clause sought to achieve and those risks that the stipulated insurance sought to cover.

As to the government's contention that there was no justification for so restricting the plain meaning of the words of the exemption clause as contended for, the court determined that there was also no reason of public policy why it should be held that, in so far as the clause referred to loss or damage caused by Fibrespinners' gross negligence, it was not enforceable.

The decision in the Durban and Coast Local Division, in Government of the Republic of South Africa (Department of Industries) v Fibre Spinners & Weavers (Pty) Ltd [2] was thus confirmed.

See also

Related Research Articles

Negligence is a failure to exercise appropriate and/or ethical ruled care expected to be exercised amongst specified circumstances. The area of tort law known as negligence involves harm caused by failing to act as a form of carelessness possibly with extenuating circumstances. The core concept of negligence is that people should exercise reasonable care in their actions, by taking account of the potential harm that they might foreseeably cause to other people or property.

In law and insurance, a proximate cause is an event sufficiently related to an injury that the courts deem the event to be the cause of that injury. There are two types of causation in the law: cause-in-fact, and proximate cause. Cause-in-fact is determined by the "but for" test: But for the action, the result would not have happened. The action is a necessary condition, but may not be a sufficient condition, for the resulting injury. A few circumstances exist where the but-for test is ineffective. Since but-for causation is very easy to show, a second test is used to determine if an action is close enough to a harm in a "chain of events" to be legally valid. This test is called proximate cause. Proximate cause is a key principle of insurance and is concerned with how the loss or damage actually occurred. There are several competing theories of proximate cause. For an act to be deemed to cause a harm, both tests must be met; proximate cause is a legal limitation on cause-in-fact.

Delict is a term in civil and mixed law jurisdictions whose exact meaning varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but is always centered on the notion of wrongful conduct.

The system of tort law in Australia is broadly similar to that in other common law countries. However, some divergences in approach have occurred as its independent legal system has developed.

Exclusion clauses and limitation clauses are terms in a contract which seek to restrict the rights of the parties to the contract.

A Himalaya clause is a contractual provision expressed to be for the benefit of a third party who is not a party to the contract. Although theoretically applicable to any form of contract, most of the jurisprudence relating to Himalaya clauses relate to maritime matters, and exclusion clauses in bills of lading for the benefit of employees, crew, and agents, stevedores in particular.

Economic loss is a term of art which refers to financial loss and damage suffered by a person which is seen only on a balance sheet and not as physical injury to person or property. There is a fundamental distinction between pure economic loss and consequential economic loss, as pure economic loss occurs independent of any physical damage to the person or property of the victim. It has also been suggested that this tort should be called "commercial loss" as injuries to person or property can be regarded as "economic".

South Australia Asset Management Corporation v York Montague Ltd and Banque Bruxelles Lambert SA v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd [1996] UKHL 10 is a joined English contract law case on causation and remoteness of damage. It arose out of the property crash in the early 1990s, whereby banks were suing valuers for overpricing houses in order to recover the lost market value. Owners themselves often had little or no money, since they had fallen victim to negative equity, so mortgage lenders would pursue a valuer instead to recover some losses. The legal principle arising from the case is often referred to as the "SAAMCO principle".

<i>J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw</i>

J Spurling Ltd v Bradshaw[1956] EWCA Civ 3 is an English contract law and English property law case on exclusion clauses and bailment. It is best known for Denning LJ's "red hand rule" comment, where he said,

I quite agree that the more unreasonable a clause is, the greater the notice which must be given of it. Some clauses which I have seen would need to be printed in red ink on the face of the document with a red hand pointing to it before the notice could be held to be sufficient.

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>Canada Steamship Lines Ltd v R</i>

Canada Steamship Lines Ltd v R[1952] UKPC 1, also referred to as Canada Steamship Lines Ltd v The King, is a Canadian contract law case, also relevant for English contract law, concerning the interpretation of unfair terms contra proferentem. The case was decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on appeal from the Supreme Court of Canada, as the cause for appeal arose before the abolition of such appeals in 1949. Although arising in civil law under the Civil Code of Lower Canada, it has been influential in similar cases under English law, but is now recognised as providing "guidelines" rather than an "automatic solution".

<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.

The South African law of delict engages primarily with 'the circumstances in which one person can claim compensation from another for harm that has been suffered'. JC Van der Walt and Rob Midgley define a delict 'in general terms [...] as a civil wrong', and more narrowly as 'wrongful and blameworthy conduct which causes harm to a person'. Importantly, however, the civil wrong must be an actionable one, resulting in liability on the part of the wrongdoer or tortfeasor.

Afrox Healthcare Ltd v Strydom, an important case in South African contract law, was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on May 13, 2002, with judgment handed down on May 31.

First National Bank of SA Ltd v Rosenblum and Another is an important case in South African contract law, heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) by Marais JA, Navsa JA and Chetty AJA on May 21, 2001, with judgment handed down on June 1. Counsel for the appellant was MD Kuper SC ; PM Wulfsohn SC appeared 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.

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.

<i>Peracomo Inc v TELUS Communications Co</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Peracomo Inc v TELUS Communications Co, 2014 SCC 29 is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the law of marine insurance, which also has international impact.

<i>Alderslade v Hendon Laundry Ltd</i>

Alderslade v Hendon Laundry Ltd [1945] KB 189 is an English contract law case, concerning the construction of exemption clauses, and the contra proferentem principle.

Norwich City Council v Harvey is a 1989 English law case on the waiver of liability in negligence.

References

Books

Cases

Notes

  1. ↑ 1978 (2) SA 794 (A).
  2. ↑ 1977 (2) SA 324.
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.