QUESTION 1: QUANTUM OF DAMAGES FOR PATRIMONIAL LOSS CAUSED BY
CERTAIN FOMS OF DELICT
(a) Study Trotman v Edwick 1951 (1) SA 443 (A) and Glaston House (Pty) Ltd
v Inag (Pty) Ltd 1977 (2) SA 846 and write down the differences between
the object of contractual damages and the object of delictual damages.
(10)
The object for damages differ depending on whether a plaintiff is suing on the basis of
a contract or delict. In Glaston House (Pty) Ltd v Inag Pty (Ltd)1 the court held that the
objective of damages is to restore to the purchaser the loss sustained because ofthe
wrongful conduct of the seller that is amount by which his patrimony has therebybeen
diminished. Therefore, an appellant is entitled to recover the amount by which
itspatrimony has been reduced as result of the non-disclosure.
In the case of Trotman v Edwick,2 the court considered an important distinction
between suing based on contract and suing based on delict.
“A litigant who sues on a contract sues to have his bargain or its equivalent in money
or in money and kind. The litigant who sues on delict sues to recover the loss which
he has sustained because of the wrongful conduct of another, in other words that the
amount by which his patrimony has been diminished by such conduct should be
returned to him.”3
The effects of contractual and delictual remedies differ. While contractual remedies
are aimed at either enforcing contractual provisions or restoring the status quo,
delictual remedies are aimed at awarding compensation for loss suffered as a result
of someone else’s wrongful conduct. In this matter, the summons did not allege any
patrimonial loss suffered as a result of the non-disclosure. The court dismissed the
appeal, and therefore found that the respondents were not delictually liable. No
mention is made of the role of damage or harm when claiming for rescission and the
1 Glaston House (Pty) Ltd v Inag (Pty) Ltd 1977 (2) SA 846.
2 Trotman v Edwick 1951 1 SA 443 (AD)
3 Trotman v Edwick 1951 1 SA 443 (AD)
CERTAIN FOMS OF DELICT
(a) Study Trotman v Edwick 1951 (1) SA 443 (A) and Glaston House (Pty) Ltd
v Inag (Pty) Ltd 1977 (2) SA 846 and write down the differences between
the object of contractual damages and the object of delictual damages.
(10)
The object for damages differ depending on whether a plaintiff is suing on the basis of
a contract or delict. In Glaston House (Pty) Ltd v Inag Pty (Ltd)1 the court held that the
objective of damages is to restore to the purchaser the loss sustained because ofthe
wrongful conduct of the seller that is amount by which his patrimony has therebybeen
diminished. Therefore, an appellant is entitled to recover the amount by which
itspatrimony has been reduced as result of the non-disclosure.
In the case of Trotman v Edwick,2 the court considered an important distinction
between suing based on contract and suing based on delict.
“A litigant who sues on a contract sues to have his bargain or its equivalent in money
or in money and kind. The litigant who sues on delict sues to recover the loss which
he has sustained because of the wrongful conduct of another, in other words that the
amount by which his patrimony has been diminished by such conduct should be
returned to him.”3
The effects of contractual and delictual remedies differ. While contractual remedies
are aimed at either enforcing contractual provisions or restoring the status quo,
delictual remedies are aimed at awarding compensation for loss suffered as a result
of someone else’s wrongful conduct. In this matter, the summons did not allege any
patrimonial loss suffered as a result of the non-disclosure. The court dismissed the
appeal, and therefore found that the respondents were not delictually liable. No
mention is made of the role of damage or harm when claiming for rescission and the
1 Glaston House (Pty) Ltd v Inag (Pty) Ltd 1977 (2) SA 846.
2 Trotman v Edwick 1951 1 SA 443 (AD)
3 Trotman v Edwick 1951 1 SA 443 (AD)
