Van der Westhuizen v Arnold

Last updated

Van der Westhuizen v Arnold [1] 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.

Contents

Facts

The respondent, Johan Heinrich Arnold, had signed an agreement of sale for a motor vehicle which provided that "no warranty whatsoever has been or is given to me by the seller or his agent(s)." The agreement had been drawn up by the appellant, Gideon Andries van der Westhuizen, the seller. Arnold had been aware when he purchased the vehicle that it was in need of repair. The discussions between Arnold and Van der Westhuizen, prior to the conclusion of the contract, had related to the condition of the vehicle.

Subsequent to Arnold's taking possession of the vehicle, a bank claimed ownership of it. To avoid the bank's claim, Arnold paid the bank the amount outstanding to it. He then claimed that amount from Van der Westhuizen, basing his claim on the implied warranty against eviction. Van der Westhuizen raised the exclusion clause in defence of the claim.

Judgment

On appeal, the court held (per Lewis AJA), that the surrounding circumstances—what passed between the parties, their negotiations and their conduct—did not show that the words "no warranty whatsoever" had included the implied warranty against eviction. Although the phrase had to be regarded at first blush as a complete catch-all, saving the seller from any liability that might have arisen by operation of law, or by virtue of representations or warranties, it could not, given its generality, and the absence of any evidence that the question of title had been considered or in contemplation, have excluded the most fundamental obligation of the seller: to give undisturbed possession of the merx to the buyer. The only inference to be drawn from the circumstances was that Arnold had not intended or even contemplated that he might be deprived of possession by the true owner, and yet have no recourse to Van der Westhuizen. The evidence did not show that Van der Westhuizen had any such liability in mind either. [2] In the circumstances, then, the provision in the document that Van der Westhuizen had given no warranties whatsoever did not exclude his liability for breach of the warranty against eviction. This did not mean that the words at issue were superfluous; they referred also to express warranties which would have related to the condition of the car. [3]

The court held further that there did not appear to be any clear authority for a general principle that exemption clauses should be construed differently from other provisions in a contract. That did not mean, however, that courts were not, or should not be, wary of contractual exclusions, since they deprived parties of rights that they would otherwise have had at common law. In the absence of legislation regulating unfair contract terms, and where a provision did not offend public policy or considerations of good faith, a careful construction of the contract itself should ensure the protection of the party whose rights had been limited, but also give effect to the principle that the other party should be able to protect herself or himself against liability insofar as it was legally permissible. The very fact, however, that an exclusion clause limited or ousted common-law rights should make a court consider with great care the meaning of the clause, especially if it was very general in its application. This required a consideration of the background circumstances and a resort to surrounding circumstances if there was any doubt as to the application of the exclusion. [4]

The court also held (per Marais JA), that the words "no warranty whatsoever has been or is given to me by the seller or his agent(s)" were of the widest connotation, but of critical importance were the words "has been or is given to me by the seller or his agent(s)." Their ordinary meaning was that Van der Westhuizen (or his agent(s)) neither gave nor had given any guarantees or warranties whatsoever. They were certainly apt to have excluded all expressly-given warranties, whatever their content. Although the word "whatsoever" would have covered warranties both expressly and tacitly given, a warranty which arose ex lege and owed nothing to the consensus of the parties was another matter altogether. It was not a warranty which was given (either expressly or tacitly) by the seller or his agent(s). The chosen words were not apt to exclude such a warranty. Plainer language than that which appellant had chosen would have been necessary to exclude effectively such a warranty. [5]

The decision in the Cape Provincial Division, in Arnold v Van der Westhuizen, was thus confirmed.

Related Research Articles

Indemnity Contractual obligation for compensation

In contract law, indemnity is a contractual obligation of one party (indemnifier) to compensate the loss incurred to the other party due to the acts of the indemnitor or any other party. The duty to indemnify is usually, but not always, coextensive with the contractual duty to "hold harmless" or "save harmless". In contrast, a "guarantee" is an obligation of one party assuring the other party that guarantor will perform the promise of the third party if it defaults.

In contract law, a warranty is a promise which is not a condition of the contract or an innominate term: (1) it is a term "not going to the root of the contract", and (2) which only entitles the innocent party to damages if it is breached: i.e. the warranty is not true or the defaulting party does not perform the contract in accordance with the terms of the warranty. A warranty is not a guarantee. It is a mere promise. It may be enforced if it is breached by an award for the legal remedy of damages.

<i>Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd</i>

Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465 is an English tort law case on economic loss in English tort law resulting from a negligent misstatement. Prior to the decision, the notion that a party may owe another a duty of care for statements made in reliance had been rejected, with the only remedy for such losses being in contract law. The House of Lords overruled the previous position, in recognising liability for pure economic loss not arising from a contractual relationship, applying to commercial negligence the principle of "assumption of responsibility".

Implied warranty

In common law jurisdictions, an implied warranty is a contract law term for certain assurances that are presumed to be made in the sale of products or real property, due to the circumstances of the sale. These assurances are characterized as warranties irrespective of whether the seller has expressly promised them orally or in writing. They include an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, an implied warranty of merchantability for products, implied warranty of workmanlike quality for services, and an implied warranty of habitability for a home.

Exclusion clause

An exclusion clause is a term in a contract that seeks to restrict the rights of the parties to the contract.

Fundamental breach of contract, is a controversial concept within the common law of contract. The doctrine was, in particular, nurtured by Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls from 1962 to 1982, but it did not find favour with the House of Lords.

As is, when employed as a term with legal effect, is used to disclaim some implied warranties for an item being sold. Certain types of implied warranties must be specifically disclaimed, such as the implied warranty of title. "As is" denotes that the seller is selling, and the buyer is buying an item in whatever condition it presently exists, and that the buyer is accepting the item "with all faults", whether or not immediately apparent. This is the classic "buyer beware" situation, where the careful buyer should take the time to examine the item before accepting it, or obtain expert advice.

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.

<i>LEstrange v F Graucob Ltd</i>

L'Estrange v F Graucob Ltd [1934] 2 KB 394 is a leading English contract law case on the incorporation of terms into a contract by signature. There are exceptions to the rule that a person is bound by his or her signature, including fraud, misrepresentation and non est factum.

<i>George Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd</i>

George Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd [1982] EWCA Civ 5 and [1983] 2 AC 803 is a case concerning the sale of goods and exclusion clauses. It was decided under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the Sale of Goods Act 1979.

Contract Legally binding document establishing rights and duties between parties

A contract is a legally binding agreement that defines and governs the rights and duties between or among its parties. A contract is legally enforceable when it meets the requirements of applicable law. A contract typically involves the exchange of goods, services, money, or a promise of any of those. In the event of a breach of contract, the injured party may seek judicial remedies such as damages or cancellation.

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.

Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973 United Kingdom legislation

The Supply of Goods Act 1973 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that provided implied terms in contracts for the supply of goods and for hire-purchase agreements, and limited the use of exclusion clauses. The result of a joint report by the England and Wales Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission, First Report on Exemption Clauses, the Act was granted the Royal Assent on 18 April 1973 and came into force a month later. It met with a mixed reaction from academics, who praised the additional protection it offered while at the same time questioning whether it was enough; several aspects of the Act's draftsmanship and implementation were also called into question. Much of the Act was repealed by the Sale of Goods Act 1979, which included many of the 1973 Act's provisions.

<i>Canada Steamship Lines Ltd v R</i>

Canada Steamship Lines Ltd v R[1952] UKPC 1 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.

South African contract law

South African contract law is "essentially a modernized version of the Roman-Dutch law of contract", which is itself 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.

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.

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.

Insurance in South Africa describes a mechanism in that country for the reduction or minimisation of loss, owing to the constant exposure of people and assets to risks. The kinds of loss which arise if such risks eventuate may be either patrimonial or non-patrimonial.

Missives of Sale (Scots law) Scottish trading law

The missives of sale, in Scots property law, are a series of formal letters between the two parties, the Buyer and the Seller, containing the contract of sale for the transfer of corporeal heritable property (land) in Scotland. The term 'land' in this article includes buildings and other structures upon land.

Disposition (Scots law)

A disposition in Scots law is a formal deed transferring ownership of corporeal heritable property. It acts as the conveyancing stage as the second of three stages required in order to voluntarily transfer ownership of land in Scotland. The three stages are:

  1. The Contractual Stage
  2. The Conveyancing Stage
  3. The Registration Stage

References

Books

Cases

Notes

  1. ↑ 2002 (6) SA 453 (SCA).
  2. ↑ Paras 34-35.
  3. ↑ Para 36.
  4. ↑ Para 40.
  5. ↑ Para 43.
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.