Summary
Summary A TO Z Bazaars (PTY) LTD v Minister OF Agriculture [1975] 3 All SA 466 (A)
- Course
- Institution
A TO Z Bazaars (PTY) LTD v Minister OF Agriculture [1975] 3 All SA 466 (A)
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
Succeesspro
Reviews received
Content preview
lOMoARcPSD|14447089A TO Z Bazaars (PTY) LTD v Minister OF Agriculture [1975] 3
All SA 466 (A)
Law of Contract (University of South Africa)
StuDocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university
Downloaded by Sally Wink (salomewnk@gmail.com)
, lOMoARcPSD|14447089
A TO Z BAZAARS (PTY) LTD v MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE
[1975] 3 All SA 466 (A)
Division: Appellate Division
Judgment Date: 12 May 1975
Case No: not recorded
Before: van Blerk JA, Botha JA, Jansen JA, Muller JA and Galgut AJA
Parallel Citation: 1975 (3) SA 468 (A)
. Keywords . Cases referred to . Judgment .
Keywords
Contract Offer Acceptance Notification Withdrawal of acceptance before notification received Posting of letter
Withdrawal by telegram
Expropriation Compensation Agreement Notice requiring notification of acceptance in writing Withdrawal of
acceptance
Statute Interpretation Delivery Service of documents Posting
Cases referred to:
Cape Explosives Works Ltd v South African Oil and Fat Industries Ltd (1); Cape Explosives Works Ltd v Lever Brothers
(SA) Ltd (2) 1921 CPD 244 Doubted
Pahad v Director of Food Supplies and Distribution 1949 (3) SA 695 (AD) Referred to
Page 467 of [1975] 3 All SA 466 (A)
View Parallel Citation
Judgment
JANSEN, J.A.: Consequent on certain of its land situated in Cape Town being expropriated by the Minister of
Agriculture for public purposes, the appellant company sued the Minister in the Cape of Good Hope Provincial
Division for
"a declaration that the compensation payable by the State in respect of the expropriation of the said property
consists of the sum of R50 400",
being the least, so the company alleged, that the land
"would have realized if sold on the date of the said notice of expropriation on the open market by a willing
seller to a willing buyer".
In so instituting action the Company complied as a matter of procedure with sec. 9 (1) of the Expropriation Act, 55
of 1965, and thus invoked the jurisdiction conferred upon the Court by sec. 7 (1) of that Act. The subsection reads
as follows:
"In the absence of agreement the compensation to be paid by the State for property expropriated by the Minister . . .
shall . . . be determined . . . by the provincial or local division of the Supreme Court of South Africa in whose area of
jurisdiction the property in question . . . is situated, if the amount . . . claimed is three thousand rand or more."
Page 468 of [1975] 3 All SA 466 (A)
View Parallel Citation
The Minister pleaded, inter alia, that the compensation payable had been "fixed by agreement between the parties
at an amount of R38 000" and that, consequently, the company
"is not entitled to payment of any compensation in excess of the agreed sum of R38 000 and is furthermore not entitled
to claim that this Honourable Court determine such compensation".
In its replication the company specifically denied the existence of any such agreement.
Before the trial it became apparent that the issue of the existence or nonexistence of the alleged agreement was
really a question of the legal construction to be placed upon certain facts which were either common cause on the
pleadings or would not be disputed at the trial. As it was obvious that the existence of such an agreement would
put the company out of Court, the parties decided to raise this issue in limine as a question of law to be decided on
agreed factspresumably in terms of Rule 33. The matter came before VAN HEERDEN, J., and he upheld the Minister's
contention with costs. (See 1974 (4) S.A. 392 (C)). As a necessary consequence dismissal later followed of the
company's action with costs. The company appeals
"against the order dismissing the action with costs in conjunction with the order upholding the preliminary point
with costs".
Downloaded by Sally Wink (salomewnk@gmail.com)
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller Succeesspro. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $9.50. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
75632 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now