Kaya Borkowski
Contract
Case Summaries
1. Sweet v Ragerguhara 1978
2. Singh v McCarthy Retail Ltd 2000
3. Datacolor International v Intamarket 2001
4. Culverwell v Brown 1990
5. Benson v SA Mutual Life Assurance Society 1986
6. ISEP Structural Engineering v Inland Exploration 1981
7. Basson v Hanna 2017
8. BK Tooling v Scope Precision Engineering 1979
9. Thoroughbred Breeders Association v Price Waterhouse Cooper 2001
Postivie Malperformance
Sweet v Ragerguhara
1978
Relevant for: positive malperformance and mora debitoris
Facts
- Sweet bought a property from Ragerguhara.
- The contract of sale stipulated that "vacant occupation" of the property will be given by a
certain date
- When this date arrived, two families were still unlawfully residing on the property.
- Sweet then sent a letter cancelling the contract
- Ragerguhara denied that Sweet had the right to cancel the contract
- Sweet then sent Ragerguhara a notice of rescission, which Ragerguhara denied was
valid
Issue
- What is the effect of the notice of rescission?
- What type of breach was it?
Outcome
- The breach is positive malperformance
- insufficient evidence had been led by both of the parties to enable the court to decide
whether Ragerguhara's breach was a material breach
- the notice of recission was not legally valid because this was clearly a case of defective
performance (and not mora) and as such, the letter of rescission could not have been
Distribution of this documenet is illegal
Contract
Case Summaries
1. Sweet v Ragerguhara 1978
2. Singh v McCarthy Retail Ltd 2000
3. Datacolor International v Intamarket 2001
4. Culverwell v Brown 1990
5. Benson v SA Mutual Life Assurance Society 1986
6. ISEP Structural Engineering v Inland Exploration 1981
7. Basson v Hanna 2017
8. BK Tooling v Scope Precision Engineering 1979
9. Thoroughbred Breeders Association v Price Waterhouse Cooper 2001
Postivie Malperformance
Sweet v Ragerguhara
1978
Relevant for: positive malperformance and mora debitoris
Facts
- Sweet bought a property from Ragerguhara.
- The contract of sale stipulated that "vacant occupation" of the property will be given by a
certain date
- When this date arrived, two families were still unlawfully residing on the property.
- Sweet then sent a letter cancelling the contract
- Ragerguhara denied that Sweet had the right to cancel the contract
- Sweet then sent Ragerguhara a notice of rescission, which Ragerguhara denied was
valid
Issue
- What is the effect of the notice of rescission?
- What type of breach was it?
Outcome
- The breach is positive malperformance
- insufficient evidence had been led by both of the parties to enable the court to decide
whether Ragerguhara's breach was a material breach
- the notice of recission was not legally valid because this was clearly a case of defective
performance (and not mora) and as such, the letter of rescission could not have been
Distribution of this documenet is illegal
