Le Riche v Hamman

Last updated December 16, 2021

Le Riche v Hamman,^[1] an important case in South African contract law, was heard in the Appellate Division in 1946, with Watermeyer CJ, Tindall JA and Greenberg JA presiding.

Facts

The plaintiff claimed transfer of a piece of land, alleging that the defendant had purchased from him another piece of land, and that both pieces had been transferred to the defendant in error. The defendant pleaded that both pieces of land had been purchased by him and that, in any event, he was unable to transfer the former piece as it had since been sold and transferred to a third party.

The trial court found that only the one piece of land had been sold to the defendant; that when defendant sold the other piece he knew that it had been transferred to him in error; and that, consequently, he was liable for the value of the land, which the court fixed at £1,250, and damages in the sum of £135.

The defendant appealed and the plaintiff cross-appealed against the valuation placed on the property.

Judgment

The court held that, inasmuch as the contract for the sale of the land had been reduced to writing in a broker's note signed by the parties, and inasmuch as the description of the land therein was unambiguous, evidence was not admissible of prior discussions and correspondence to show that what was in fact sold was both pieces of land. The court held further, on the facts, that the plaintiff had furnished an acceptable explanation of how the mistake in the transfer had arisen.

It was not necessary for the plaintiff to prove that the defendant knew throughout that he had bought only the one piece of land. As his claim was a conidictio indebiti , he was entitled to the property upon proof that there was no legal or natural obligation to give transfer, and that transfer had been made by mistake—unless the defendant proved that he had sold it under the bona fide belief that it was due to him, in which case he nevertheless would have to account for the price which he had received.

The court held on the facts that the defendant had not discharged the onus of proving that he had sold the property bona fide and that, consequently, he was liable for the value of the land, whose true value was £1,700. The cross appeal thus succeeded, and the decision of the Cape Provincial Division in Hammen v Le Riche was in part confirmed and in part reversed.

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.

Vaughan v Menlove (1837) 132 ER 490 (CP) is a leading English tort law case that first introduced the concept of the reasonable person in law.

Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver[1942] UKHL 1, is a leading case in UK company law regarding the rule against directors and officers from taking personal advantage of a corporate opportunity in violation of their duty of loyalty to the company. The Court held that a director is in breach of his duties if he takes advantage of an opportunity that the corporation would otherwise be interested in but was unable to take advantage. However the breach could have been resolved by ratification by the shareholders, which those involved neglected to do.

Hartog v Colin & Shields [1939] 3 All ER 566 is an important English contract law case regarding unilateral mistake. It holds that when it is obvious that someone has made a mistake in the terms of an offer, one may not simply "snap up" the offer and be able to enforce the agreement.

Daulia Ltd v Four Millbank Nominees Ltd [1977] is an English contract law case, concerning unilateral contracts, and when embarking on the performance of an act for which an offer is open, at what point the offer may be withdrawn. In particular, Goff LJ observed that there would be a duty to not prevent full performance of terms in a unilateral offer, once performance had begun.

Attorney General v Blake[2000] UKHL 45, [2001] 1 AC 268 is a leading English contract law case on damages for breach of contract. It established that in some circumstances, where ordinary remedies are inadequate, restitutionary damages may be awarded.

Sumpter v Hedges [1898] 1 QB 673 is an English contract law case, concerning substantial performance of a contract and restitution for unjust enrichment.

Chysky v. Drake Bros. Co., 235 N.Y. 468, 139 N.E. 576 (1922), was a products liability case before the New York Court of Appeals. The Court held that a plaintiff cannot recover from a defendant based on implied warranty when she does not have contractual privity with him; thus, a plaintiff cannot recover from a defendant who sold her employer food unfit for consumption, because the defendant's implied warranty extended only to the employer.

<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.

Callisher v Bischoffsheim (1869–70) LR 5 QB 449 is an English contract law case concerning consideration. It held that the compromise of a disputed claim made bonâ fide is a good consideration for a promise, even if it ultimately appears that the claim was wholly unfounded.

Union Government v Vianini Ferro-Concrete Pipes (Pty) Ltd is an important case in South African contract law, heard in the Appellate Division by De Wet CJ, Watermeyer JA, Tindall JA, Centlivres JA and Feetham JA on 25 September – 15 October 1940.

Breskvar v Wall, was an Australian court case, decided in the High Court on 13 December 1971. The case was an influential decision in property law, specifically the effect of obtaining title by registration under the Torrens title system, the application of the fraud exception to the principle of indefeasibility and whether Frazer v Walker should be followed in Australia. The High Court followed Frazer v Wall in upholding that a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the fraud obtained an effective title even though the person they purchased from was registered by fraud against the original owner.

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.

Foskett v McKeown[2000] UKHL 29 is a leading case on the English law of trusts, concerning tracing and the availability of proprietary relief following a breach of trust.

Cuckmere Brick Co v Mutual Finance[1971] EWCA Civ 9 is an English tort law case, establishing the lender must publish/promote the materially beneficial key, intrinsic facts as to land in mortgage repossession sales. As it affects the duty of mortgagees, to that extent it can be considered within the periphery of English land law also.

Smit v Abrahams is an important case in South African law. It was heard in the Appellate Division on March 15, 1994, with judgment handed down on May 16. Botha AR, EM Grosskopf AR, Kumleben AR, Van Den Heever AR and Mahomed Wn AR were the judges.

El Ajou v Dollar Land Holdings plc[1993] EWCA Civ 4 is an English trusts law case concerning tracing and receipt of property in breach of trust.

East London Model Dairy Co-Operative v Toyk is an important case in South African law. An action for an order cancelling a sale, and for the refund of the purchase price, it was heard in the Eastern Districts Local Division by De Villiers J November 9, 10 and 11, 1954, with judgment handed down on December 9. The plaintiffs' attorneys were RG White, Gillett & McConnachie. The defendant's attorneys were Segal & Pincus. AW Back, QC, appeared for the plaintiff; NC Addleson for the defendant

Mascall v Mascall[1984] EWCA Civ 10 was an appeal on formalities in English law. The final, registration stage of a witnessed deed of transfer is not imperative in all circumstances, the court confirmed. Those circumstances include that there must be no detriment to a third party bona fide purchaser or mortgagee for value without notice; and there must be no fraud or abuse of trust as defined by law. It has wider resonance with the formalities of Trusts in English law.

Bunny Industries v FSW Enterprises is a decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland.

References

Du Plessis, Jacques, et al. The Law of Contract in South Africa . Edited by Dale Hutchison, Chris-James Pretorius, Mark Townsend and Helena Janisch. Cape Town, Western Cape: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Le Riche v Hamman 1946 AD 648.

Notes

↑ 1946 AD 648.

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.

[1] 1946 AD 648.

[1]