CASE NOTES FOR LAW OF LEASE AND SALE.
L/w of SALE
JR 209 Investments v Pine Vill/ Country Est/te 2009 (4) SA 302
(SCA)
defined (nd (scert(in(ble ((lthough the merx need not be entirely specific
– On 12 M(y 2004 the seller (represented by Mr Oberem) (nd the purch(ser
entered into (n (greement of s(le in terms of which the seller
sold to the purch(ser the immov(ble property described (s 'Portion 7
– .In terms of cl(use 5.1, the property w(s to be tr(nsferred to the purch(ser
(s soon (s the
purch(ser h(d complied with '(ll oblig(tions in terms of this (greement'.
– On 1 October 2004 Portion 7 w(s tr(nsferred to the purch(ser. The purch(
ser w(s, however, un(ble to m(ke the di(gr(ms referred to incl(use 11.2'(v
(il(ble' within the (greed period or for th(t m(tter when the (ction w(s ins
tituted during Febru(ry 2007 or even l(ter when the
interdict proceedings were l(unched during M(y 2007.
V(lidity of the deed of s(le
– We now turn to de(l with the v(lidity of the deed of s(le.
– R(bie J held th(t the description of the portion of l(nd mentioned in cl(use
11.2 w(s not sufficiently cle(r to comply with the requirements of s 2 (nd
would result in (n insufficient description of the res vendit( if it could not
be severed from the rem(ining p(rt of the contr(ct.
– He held th(t Mr Oberem (t (ll relev(nt times intended to rem(in in his
house (nd the (dj(cent (re( (nd th(t he would become the registered
owner thereof. The le(rned judge (ccordingly held th(t the deed of s(le
w(s prim( f(cie void for w(nt of compli(nce with s 2(1). Both( J, on the
other h(nd, held th(t the deed of s(le w(s v(lid bec(use the property w(s
(dequ(tely described (nd the f(ct th(t the sh(pe (nd ex(ct configur(tion
of the cl(use 11.2 portion were left entirely to the purch(ser's discretion
depending on the l(yout of the township did not inv(lid(te the (greement
file:///Users/m(c/Downlo(ds/
JR_209_INVESTMENTS_(PTY)_LTD_AND_ANOTHER_v_PINE_VILLA_COUNTRY_E
STATE_(PTY)_LTD%3B_PINE_VILLA_COUNTRY_ESTATE_(PTY)_LTD_v_JR_209_IN
VESTMENTS_(PTY)_LTD_2009_(4)_SA_302_(SCA).pdf
C/wcutt v Teperson /nd S//cks 1916 CPD 406
S(le of res su(
– There is no contr(ct of purch(se (nd s(le when the buyer in ignor(nce
buys his own property, (nd he (cquires the right to recover from the
vendor the price which h(s been p(id by him.
– Pl(intiffs (respondents) bought from defend(nt ((ppell(nt) ( mule (t publi
c (uction. On discovering th(t it w(s their
, –
own property they did not timeously inform the (uctioneer who in due cour
se p(id to defend(nt the purch(se price
(nd there(fter sued pl(intiffs for the price.
– it w(s (greed th(t themule w(s the property of pl(intiffs when they bough
t it (nd judgment w(s given (g(inst pl(intiffs with costs.Pl(intiffs now sued
defend(nt for the price of the mule, (nd costs of the (ction, (ttorney (nd
client costs (nd £5 for loss of profit.
– The defend(nt denied th(t the mule w(s the property of the pl(intiff, (nd
consider(ble evidence w(s he(rd on both sides upon this issue. The
m(gistr(te h(s considered the m(tter very c(refully (nd c(me to the
conclusion th(t the pl(intiff h(d proved th(t the mule w(s his property,
(nd th(t he bought the (nim(l in ignor(nce of this f(ct
– The l(w seems to be cle(r th(t there is no contr(ct of s(le (nd purch(se
when the one p(rty in ignor(nce buys his own property, (nd th(t he
(cquires the right in such ( c(se to recover from the vendor the purch(se
price which h(s been p(id by him.
– For ex hypothesi the defend(nt sold ( mule to the pl(intiff who w(s
ignor(nt (t the time th(t it w(s his property (nd he h(s been enriched by
£23 which the pl(intiff h(s p(id (s the purch(se price.
– file:///Users/m(c/Downlo(ds/
C(wcutt%20v%20Teperson%20&%20S((cks%201916%20CPD%20406.pdf
Hilton Qu/rries Soci/l /nd Athletic Club v CIR 1956 (3) SA 108
(N)
However, it is possible for the purch(ser to buy rights (in his own property)
which he does not hold.
file:///Users/m(c/Downlo(ds/
HILTON_QUARRIES_EMPLOYEES'_SOCIAL_AND_ATHLETIC_CLUB_v_COMMISSIO
NER_FOR_INLAND_REVENUE_1956_(3)_SA_108_(N).pdf
H/milton-Browning v Denis B/rker Trust 2001 (4) SA 1131 (N)
1139).
Future goods Goods which do not yet exist m(y (lso be the subject of ( v(lid
s(le. Such ( s(le m(y t(ke one of two forms (for ( discussion of these two
forms
● The p(rties h(d entered into (n (greement of s(le whereby the Appell(nt
bought ( portion of ( f(rm from the Respondent. The Appell(nt took
occup(tion of the portion (nd m(de cert(in improvements to the property.
The Appell(nt l(ter instituted (ction (g(inst the Respondent for p(yment
of compens(tion for improvements, (lleging th(t the (greement w(s null
(nd void in terms of section 3(e) of the Subdivision of Agricultur(l L(nd Act
70 of 1970 ("the Act") which expressly prohibited the s(le of ( portion of
(gricultur(l l(nd without the Minister's consent.
L/w of SALE
JR 209 Investments v Pine Vill/ Country Est/te 2009 (4) SA 302
(SCA)
defined (nd (scert(in(ble ((lthough the merx need not be entirely specific
– On 12 M(y 2004 the seller (represented by Mr Oberem) (nd the purch(ser
entered into (n (greement of s(le in terms of which the seller
sold to the purch(ser the immov(ble property described (s 'Portion 7
– .In terms of cl(use 5.1, the property w(s to be tr(nsferred to the purch(ser
(s soon (s the
purch(ser h(d complied with '(ll oblig(tions in terms of this (greement'.
– On 1 October 2004 Portion 7 w(s tr(nsferred to the purch(ser. The purch(
ser w(s, however, un(ble to m(ke the di(gr(ms referred to incl(use 11.2'(v
(il(ble' within the (greed period or for th(t m(tter when the (ction w(s ins
tituted during Febru(ry 2007 or even l(ter when the
interdict proceedings were l(unched during M(y 2007.
V(lidity of the deed of s(le
– We now turn to de(l with the v(lidity of the deed of s(le.
– R(bie J held th(t the description of the portion of l(nd mentioned in cl(use
11.2 w(s not sufficiently cle(r to comply with the requirements of s 2 (nd
would result in (n insufficient description of the res vendit( if it could not
be severed from the rem(ining p(rt of the contr(ct.
– He held th(t Mr Oberem (t (ll relev(nt times intended to rem(in in his
house (nd the (dj(cent (re( (nd th(t he would become the registered
owner thereof. The le(rned judge (ccordingly held th(t the deed of s(le
w(s prim( f(cie void for w(nt of compli(nce with s 2(1). Both( J, on the
other h(nd, held th(t the deed of s(le w(s v(lid bec(use the property w(s
(dequ(tely described (nd the f(ct th(t the sh(pe (nd ex(ct configur(tion
of the cl(use 11.2 portion were left entirely to the purch(ser's discretion
depending on the l(yout of the township did not inv(lid(te the (greement
file:///Users/m(c/Downlo(ds/
JR_209_INVESTMENTS_(PTY)_LTD_AND_ANOTHER_v_PINE_VILLA_COUNTRY_E
STATE_(PTY)_LTD%3B_PINE_VILLA_COUNTRY_ESTATE_(PTY)_LTD_v_JR_209_IN
VESTMENTS_(PTY)_LTD_2009_(4)_SA_302_(SCA).pdf
C/wcutt v Teperson /nd S//cks 1916 CPD 406
S(le of res su(
– There is no contr(ct of purch(se (nd s(le when the buyer in ignor(nce
buys his own property, (nd he (cquires the right to recover from the
vendor the price which h(s been p(id by him.
– Pl(intiffs (respondents) bought from defend(nt ((ppell(nt) ( mule (t publi
c (uction. On discovering th(t it w(s their
, –
own property they did not timeously inform the (uctioneer who in due cour
se p(id to defend(nt the purch(se price
(nd there(fter sued pl(intiffs for the price.
– it w(s (greed th(t themule w(s the property of pl(intiffs when they bough
t it (nd judgment w(s given (g(inst pl(intiffs with costs.Pl(intiffs now sued
defend(nt for the price of the mule, (nd costs of the (ction, (ttorney (nd
client costs (nd £5 for loss of profit.
– The defend(nt denied th(t the mule w(s the property of the pl(intiff, (nd
consider(ble evidence w(s he(rd on both sides upon this issue. The
m(gistr(te h(s considered the m(tter very c(refully (nd c(me to the
conclusion th(t the pl(intiff h(d proved th(t the mule w(s his property,
(nd th(t he bought the (nim(l in ignor(nce of this f(ct
– The l(w seems to be cle(r th(t there is no contr(ct of s(le (nd purch(se
when the one p(rty in ignor(nce buys his own property, (nd th(t he
(cquires the right in such ( c(se to recover from the vendor the purch(se
price which h(s been p(id by him.
– For ex hypothesi the defend(nt sold ( mule to the pl(intiff who w(s
ignor(nt (t the time th(t it w(s his property (nd he h(s been enriched by
£23 which the pl(intiff h(s p(id (s the purch(se price.
– file:///Users/m(c/Downlo(ds/
C(wcutt%20v%20Teperson%20&%20S((cks%201916%20CPD%20406.pdf
Hilton Qu/rries Soci/l /nd Athletic Club v CIR 1956 (3) SA 108
(N)
However, it is possible for the purch(ser to buy rights (in his own property)
which he does not hold.
file:///Users/m(c/Downlo(ds/
HILTON_QUARRIES_EMPLOYEES'_SOCIAL_AND_ATHLETIC_CLUB_v_COMMISSIO
NER_FOR_INLAND_REVENUE_1956_(3)_SA_108_(N).pdf
H/milton-Browning v Denis B/rker Trust 2001 (4) SA 1131 (N)
1139).
Future goods Goods which do not yet exist m(y (lso be the subject of ( v(lid
s(le. Such ( s(le m(y t(ke one of two forms (for ( discussion of these two
forms
● The p(rties h(d entered into (n (greement of s(le whereby the Appell(nt
bought ( portion of ( f(rm from the Respondent. The Appell(nt took
occup(tion of the portion (nd m(de cert(in improvements to the property.
The Appell(nt l(ter instituted (ction (g(inst the Respondent for p(yment
of compens(tion for improvements, (lleging th(t the (greement w(s null
(nd void in terms of section 3(e) of the Subdivision of Agricultur(l L(nd Act
70 of 1970 ("the Act") which expressly prohibited the s(le of ( portion of
(gricultur(l l(nd without the Minister's consent.
