Tag: Norton Rose Fulbright South Africa

A defendant is not liable unless their wrongful conduct in fact causes the claimant’s harm.

Often ‘gross negligence’ is used as a carve-out from a no-liability clause. The Consumer Protection Act expressly provides that a supplier cannot exclude liability for gross negligence.

The South African Supreme Court of Appeal has again reminded us that it is not a requirement for a valid contract of sale that the seller must be the owner of the thing sold.

In the case of Fourie v van der Spy and de Jongh Inc, a firm of attorneys involved in a property transaction paid R1,744,599.45 into the bank account of a hacker in response to emailed instructions.

The applicant in Jacobs v Department of Land Affairs had been deprived of land through a racist fraudulent transfer of the land in 1907 and subsequent eviction in 1921.

The South African Schools Act 1996 makes the State liable for any delictual damage or loss caused as a result of any act or omission in connection with any school activity for which the school would otherwise have been liable.

Where a former managing director of a municipal entity was sued by that entity for alleged breach of the Municipal Finance Management Act 2003 (MFMA) it was held that she was entitled to join 19 other municipal officials on the ground that they were allegedly joint wrongdoers and equally liable to the municipality if she herself was liable for breach of various responsibilities whilst she was in office.

A sale agreement had been signed on behalf of a trust, as purchaser, by a single trustee whose conduct was thereafter ratified by the remaining trustees.

Where one of the parties to a contract had secretly entered into agreements with third parties to gain an unfair advantage for itself, the court held that it was in breach of the good faith and non-disclosure provisions and liable for damages.

Where a non-variation clause and a whole agreement clause were included in a comprehensive contract dealing in detail with the subject matter between the parties, the court refused to import a tacit term into the contract.