Hansen, Schrader & Co. v De Gasperi

Last updated

Hansen, Schrader & Co. v De Gasperi [1] 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.

Contents

Contractual interpretation

The case is important primarily for its influence on the interpretation of contracts in South Africa. "The primary purpose of the interpretation of a contract," writes Catherine Maxwell, "is to give effect to the intentions of the parties." [2] The primary rule, therefore, is that effect must be given to the parties' common intention: that is, to what both of them intended on entering into the contract. As Innes J put it in Joubert v Enslin , [3] "The golden rule applicable to the interpretation of all contracts is to ascertain and to follow the intention of the parties." [4]

There is a paradox, however, in that the subjective intentions of the parties must be established with reference to certain objective factors, [5] the most obvious being the words printed on the contract. As Solomon puts it in his judgment,

It is not for this Court to speculate as to what the intentions of the parties were when they entered into the contract. That must be gathered from their language, and it is the duty of the Court as far as possible to give to the language used by the parties its ordinary grammatical meaning. [6]

In determining the common intention of the parties, then, the courts must consider first the literal and ordinary meaning of the words in the contract. [7] [8] Hence Innes J continues, in Joubert v Enslin, "If the contract itself, or any evidence admissible under the circumstances, affords a definite indication of the meaning of the contracting parties, then it seems to me that a court should always give effect to that meaning." [9]

The Court in Hansen was not concerned, per se, with determining exactly the intention of the parties; its goal was to determine whether or not that intention was clearly reflected in the contractual document, from the literal and ordinary meaning of the language.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Parol evidence rule</span> Common law rule relating to contracts

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Meeting of the minds</span> Legal term

Meeting of the minds is a phrase in contract law used to describe the intentions of the parties forming the contract. In particular, it refers to the situation where there is a common understanding in the formation of the contract. Formation of a contract is initiated with a proposal or offer. This condition or element is considered a requirement to the formation of a contract in some jurisdictions.

Statutory interpretation is the process by which courts interpret and apply legislation. Some amount of interpretation is often necessary when a case involves a statute. Sometimes the words of a statute have a plain and a straightforward meaning. But in many cases, there is some ambiguity in the words of the statute that must be resolved by the judge. To find the meanings of statutes, judges use various tools and methods of statutory interpretation, including traditional canons of statutory interpretation, legislative history, and purpose. In common law jurisdictions, the judiciary may apply rules of statutory interpretation both to legislation enacted by the legislature and to delegated legislation such as administrative agency regulations.

The plain meaning rule, also known as the literal rule, is one of three rules of statutory construction traditionally applied by English courts. The other two are the "mischief rule" and the "golden rule".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Australian contract law</span>

The law of contract in Australia is similar to other Anglo-American common law jurisdictions.

The Four Corners Rule is a legal doctrine that courts use to determine the meaning of a written instrument such as a contract, will, or deed as represented solely by its textual content. The doctrine states that where there is an ambiguity of terms, the Court must rely on the written instrument solely and cannot consider extraneous evidence.

<i>Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society</i>

Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd. v West Bromwich Building Society[1997] UKHL 28 is a frequently-cited English contract law case which laid down that a contextual approach must be taken to the interpretation of contracts.

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>Attorney General of Belize v Belize Telecom Ltd</i>

Attorney General of Belize v Belize Telecom Ltd[2009] UKPC 10 is a judicial decision of the Privy Council in relation to contract law, company law and constitutional law. It concerns the correct method for interpretation and implication of terms into a company's articles of association.

The purposive approach is an approach to statutory and constitutional interpretation under which common law courts interpret an enactment within the context of the law's purpose.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial interpretation</span> Ways courts interpret laws, especially Constitutional laws

Judicial interpretation is the way in which the judiciary construes the law, particularly constitutional documents, legislation and frequently used vocabulary. This is an important issue in some common law jurisdictions such as the United States, Australia and Canada, because the supreme courts of those nations can overturn laws made by their legislatures via a process called judicial review.

<i>Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd</i>

Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd[2009] UKHL 38 is an English contract law case concerning interpretation of contracts. It creates a so-called "red ink" rule, that there is no limit to verbal rearrangement that the court may deploy to give a commercial sensible meaning when construing a contract in its bargaining context. It also, importantly, reaffirmed the rule of English law, that pre-contractual negotiations were ordinarily inadmissible when construing a 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The law of agency in South Africa regulates the performance of a juristic act on behalf or in the name of one person by another, who is authorised by the principal to act, with the result that a legal tie arises between the principal and a third party, which creates, alters or discharges legal relations between the principal and a third party. Kerr states that, in legal contexts, the word "agent" is most commonly used of a person whose activities are concerned with the formation, variation or termination of contractual obligations, and that agency has a corresponding meaning. It is the agent's position as the principal's authorised representative in affecting the principal's legal relations with third parties that is the essence of agency.

<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. ↑ 1903 TH 100.
  2. ↑ Du Plessis et al 254.
  3. ↑ 1910 AD 6.
  4. ↑ 37.
  5. ↑ Du Plessis et al 268.
  6. ↑ 103.
  7. ↑ Rand Rietfontein Estates Ltd v Cohn 1937 A.D. 317 at 325.
  8. ↑ Coopers & Lybrand and Others v Bryant 1995 (3) SA 761 (AD) at 767E.
  9. ↑ 37.
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.