Johnston v Leal

Last updated

Johnston v Leal [1] is an important case in South African contract law, heard in the Appellate Division on 22 February 1980, by Jansen JA, Corbett JA, Miller JA, Van Winsen AJA and Botha AJA, with judgment handed down on 30 May. The case is valuable, inter alia, for its exposition of the parol evidence rule. [2]

Contents

Related Research Articles

<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.

Peters, Flamman and Company v Kokstad Municipality, decided by Solomon JA, is an important case in South African contract law, specifically in the area of termination and supervening impossibility of performance.

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.

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.

Alfred McAlpine & Son (Pty) Ltd v Transvaal Provincial Administration is an important case in the South African law of contract, heard in the Appellate Division from 18 to 21 February 1974, and decided on 20 May. The case concerned a contract to build a portion of a national road, into which contract an exceptional number of variations was introduced. The result was disruption. Because the contract had not lapsed, the court determined that there was no new agreement in terms of which the contractor was entitled to reasonable remuneration instead of the contract price, and there was no implied term stipulating that the owner must introduce the variations "at reasonable times."

Golden Cape Fruits (Pty) Ltd v Fotoplate (Pty) Ltd 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.

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.

Schmidt v Dwyer is an important case in South African contract law and the South African law of lease, heard in the Cape Provincial Division by De Villiers JP and Van Wyk J on August 5, 1957, with judgment handed down on August 23. It is important for its consideration of voetstoots clauses and its determination that these cannot nullify warranties.

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.

Wells v SA Alumenite Co. is an important case in South African contract law, heard in the Appellate Division in Bloemfontein, on 6 October 1926, with judgment delivered on 11 October. Innes CJ, De Villiers JA, Kotzé JA, Wessels JA and Stratford AJA were the judges.

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.

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.

Drifters Adventure Tours CC v Hircock [2006] ZASCA 174 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 (SCA) on 4 September 2006, with judgment handed down on 29 September. The judges were Zulman JA, Farlam JA, Conradie JA, Mlambo JA and Maya JA. Counsel for the appellant was AR Sholto-Douglas SC ; RS van der Riet SC appeared for the respondent.

Swadif (Pty) Ltd v Dyke NO is an important case in South African contract law, especially in the area of novation. It was heard in the Appellate Division by Wessels JA, Muller JA, Miller JA, Joubert JA and Trengove AJA on 15 September 1977, with judgment handed down on 22 November.

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.

Benson v SA Mutual Life Assurance Society is an important case in South African contract law, particularly in the area of claims for specific performance. It was heard in the Appellate Division, by Corbett JA, Kotzé JA, Hefer JA, Galgut AJA and Cillié AJA, on 7 November 1985, with judgment handed down on 29 November.

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.

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.

References

Books

Cases

Notes

  1. 1980 (3) SA 927 (A).
  2. Du Plessis et al 255.