Commercial Law Index

Contract – limitation of liability clause – suing in delict to escape application of limitation of liability clause

Delict  – wrongfulness – duty of care
 

The applicants sought to interdict the respondents from applying the provisions of the Medicines and Related Substances Act (Medicines Act) and prevent them from seizing and detaining Playboy e-cigarettes and hookahs pending the outcome of part B of the application. A consignment of e-cigarettes belonging to the first applicant was seized by the first respondent. Part B of the application was a review of the decision by the respondents to amend Schedules 1, 2, and 3 of the Medicines Act.

The two issues in dispute were that the Medicines Act was being selectively enforced against the applicant as there had been no measures or steps taken in the past against other importers, distributors or retailers of e-cigarettes. Secondly, that the seizure of the consignment was not in accordance with the Medicines Act.

The respondents contended that selective enforcement took place due to capacity constraints. Whether or not the selective enforcement was constitutional depended upon whether there was a rational basis therefor. The court held that the selection was irrational and targeted the applicant for no objective reason. The means by which the respondent went about enforcing the Medicines Act against the applicant and no other retailer, distributor or importer was not connected to the governmental purpose of regulating e-cigarettes containing nicotine. The seizure of the consignment was set aside in terms of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act. The court held that there was no need to make a determination on the interpretation of the Medicines Act.

The application was granted with costs.

This issue was whether the Minister of Finance (applicant) has powers to intervene where the respondent's (Oak Bay Investments) bank accounts were being closed. In deciding the case, the court employed the Superior Court Act 10 of 2013 (the act) which empowers the court to enquire into and determine any rights and obligation a person can claim. 

The court held that the enquiry envisaged by s21(c) of the act encompasses a two-legged enquiry. The court must be satisfied that the applicant is a person interested in an existing, future or contingent right and whether the case is a proper one in which to exercise its jurisdiction.

The court ruled that there is no statute that empowers a minister to intervene in a private bank client dispute. Banks can terminate a relationship with a client at their own discretion. It observed that there was no uncertainty in regard to the relief sought by the applicant as there was a court precedent relating to relief being sought.  The court held that the Minister of Finance through his counsel knew very well that he has no power to intervene. The court ruled that it is not obliged to grant the order sought by the minister because there was no uncertainty in regard to the legal question. It ruled further that to allow the relief sought would breach the principal of separation of powers as it will amount to judiciary to stray into domain of the executive.

The applicants sought an order declaring that the respondent’s premature removal of an advertisement from a billboard under the latter’s control was unlawful and unconstitutional. The advertisement concerned Israel’s occupation of Palestine depicted by contrasting maps.

The applicants contested the removal on several grounds, including freedom of expression, which is entrenched by section 16 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. Because respondent was not a state entity, this raised questions of when s 16 may be horizontally applied.

The respondent substantiated its conduct in terms of its agreement with the second applicant, arguing it was permissible due to the advertisement’s alleged contravention of the City’s advertising by-laws, the Practice Code of the Advertising Standards Authority, as well as its own internal policies.

The court found no legitimate basis in the parties’ agreement, on these facts, for the respondent’s removal of the advertisement prior to the stipulated flighting period. As a private body, the respondent was not positively burdened with respecting, promoting and upholding the applicants’ right to freedom of expression. However, it still faced a negative duty not to interfere with it.

The court granted the application and directed the respondent to reinstate the advertisement, subject to practical qualifications. A portion of 9(h) of the Outdoor Advertising By-Laws of the City of Johannesburg was held to be invalid for exceeding the constitutional limitations of free speech.

In this case, the court considered the capacity (locus standi) and tests for making an application, under ss 45 and 46 the Trademarks Act.

In this case, the competitors were trading in respect of goods in class 9 (phones and other electronic goods). The court determined whether the applicant (a registered owner of the trademark TECNO in Hong Kong) had the locus standi to challenge registration of the trademark TECNO in Uganda. The court applied the rule that an agent of an owner of a registered mark in a Paris Convention member country had such capacity and held that the applicant had the capacity.

The court observed that the trademarks of the litigants were identical in terms of wording and in respect of the same goods. The court applied the rule that the mere adoption of a mark without bona fide use does not create trademark rights. The court noted that the respondent was using the mark for illegal purposes such as counterfeiting and passing off. Accordingly, the court ordered that the trademark be removed for non–use as per s 46 of the Trademarks Act.

This case involved a memorandum of understanding that was departed from orally by both parties. This case illustrates how an oral variation leaves the written contract enforceable.

The court considered three issues, whether there was a valid contract, whether the counter-defendant had breached the contract, and if the counterclaimant is entitled to the remedies available.

The court held that the burden of proving misrepresentation rests on the party alleging it. Secondly, a breach of a contract arises when a party to a contract fails to meet its contractual obligation. However, where a party waives its rights, it cannot claim damages for breach on the same contract. Lastly, the court held that a party must take all reasonable steps to mitigate loss following a breach.

The court was satisfied that there was no proof of misrepresentation on the part of the counterclaimant. The court found that though there was breach of the contract by the counter-defendant, the counter-claimant had waived its rights and could not claim damages for breach on the same contract. The court was satisfied that the counter-claimant did not mitigate its loss and was therefore not entitled to any special damages.
 

The plaintiff was the registered proprietor for ‘Marie Classic Biscuits’. The defendant also sold biscuits, under the name ‘Aya Marie Biscuits’. The court considered whether the get-up of the defendant's product was similar to that of the plaintiff, whether it was likely to confuse average consumers, if there has been a passing off; and if so what remedies were applicable.

The court outlined the test for confusion about the get-up as concerning the perceptions of an average customer.

To establish ‘passing off’ the plaintiff must prove goodwill, misrepresentation and damage. Goodwill is the attractive force attached to the name, get-up or logo which brings in custom.

Misrepresentation is a false description made consciously or unconsciously by the defendant. Motive is not necessary. The onus for damages lies with the plaintiff; it must be proved that there was damage to goodwill.

The court found that the defendant’s get-up is similar to the plaintiff’s, the bulk of consumers identify the plaintiff's goods with the general impression of the red colour; in that light the plaintiff's goodwill is eroded. The court held that the red colour is not uniform for Marie biscuits around the world and therefore is not sufficient to satisfy the test of misrepresentation. The court also found that the plaintiff failed to prove actual damage to goodwill.

The court upheld the plaintiff's complaints and ordered an injunction to avoid the possibility of the defendant to reintroduce the products, and costs.

Each of the parties accused the other of breach of contract. The plaintiff alleged breach in terms of non-payment for services conducted. The defendant counter-claimed breach in terms of failure to comply with the set completion time and providing substandard quality work.

The defendant also contended that should it be found liable, it should be indemnified by a third party as it has been negligent in doing its work.This court held that the defendant is not entitled to indemnity or any contribution from the third party.

The court found that there was no breach of contract by the plaintiff in so far as completion time is concerned. The defendant waived the right to complain about completion time and was estopped from raising the issue. The defendant was found to not be entitled to monies claimed in the counterclaim, as there was no basis for it and this court had already held that the defendant waived its rights.

The plaintiff was found to be entitled to the monies reflected on two certificates. The plaintiff was not awarded the contractual interest claimed because the court held that the the defendant was justified in not paying contractual interest for an erroneously issued certificate.

Following its non-payment for construction services rendered, the plaintiff sued the defendant for breach of contract. A counter-claim was lodged alleging that the plaintiff breached the parties’ agreement through a significant delay in performance and sub-standard discharge of its obligations. Insofar as the third party had issued unqualified certificates of completion for the plaintiff’s/counter-defendant’s alleged malperformance, the defendant/counter-claimant contended that it was negligent and therefore liable for a degree of indemnification.

The defendant/counter-claimant was found to have impliedly waived its right to liquidated damages for late performance and consequently estopped from enforcing it. The court found further that the plaintiff’s/counter-defendant’s performance, while flawed in some respects, was not materially defective. The issuing of a certificate of completion marks the close of liquidated damages liability and commences the period of defects liability, where errors in performance are identified and submitted to the contract debtor for rectification. Failure to rectify does not give a right to sue for breach but rather gives the employer the right to refuse to release retention monies.

The third party was found to have conducted its work competently, barring one erroneously issued certificate, and was under no obligation to indemnify the defendant. The defendant was therefore indebted to the plaintiff for the outstanding amounts stipulated by the lawfully issued certificates. Because the defendant had accepted and made use of the plaintiff’s performance, despite the erroneously issued certificate of completion, the court found that it was liable to compensate the latter under the law of unjustified enrichment. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff with costs.

In this case the plaintiff had lost valuable equipment through acts of incendiarism and sought indemnity since this had happened over 100 days into the life of the insurance policy. This case illustrates how parties are bound to their own undertakings in a contract for insurance premiums.

The court considered whether the plaintiff was entitled to indemnity under the Contractor Plant and Machinery Policy. The court considered the parole evidence rule and held that the defendant had to meet its obligations under the insurance policy. The policy insurance was clear on what it covered and thus the defendant could not invoke the parole evidence to show what the insurance policy intentions were or not. The court held that it could only enforce the insurance policy as it was.

The court also considered whether the plaintiff’s claim was fraudulent. It held that the plaintiff’s claim under the insurance policy was legitimate, as it had been proven that it possessed a valid insurance policy issued by the defendant. Thus in the absence of proof of fraud by the defendant, obligations under the insurance policy had to be met.

The court concluded that there was no fraud and thus the plaintiff was to be indemnified. The court upheld the claim and awarded damages in favour of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff sought relief from the court for alleged breach of contract said to have been committed by the defendant. The alleged breach was on the basis that the defendant had renewed a contract the parties had entered into and breached the contract by awarding a tender to another bidder. 
In considering whether there was a breach of contract, the court essentially had to decide whether the contract between the parties was renewed.

The court held that the contract was not renewed, thus no breach of contract had taken place. 

The court examined the clauses of the contract that was entered into along with legislation that provides guidance regarding procurement in local government in reaching its decision. From the above instruments, the court stated that for renewal to take place, it would have to be in accordance with clause 17.1.1 of the contract and through legislation. 

Seeing that that was not the case, the court stated that there was only an oral understanding between the parties to continue working together even after the contract between them had expired. 

The suit by the plaintiff was dismissed with costs. Since there was no breach of contract, no remedies were available to the plaintiff. 
 

The plaintiff entered into a loan agreement with the respondent. The plaintiff averred that the defendant had neglected and failed to pay the stipulated monthly installments and was therefore in breach of the loan agreement. The defendant however denied the claim and averred that she has never applied for any loan from the plaintiff but contended that her former employer and its directors applied for staff loans from the plaintiff.

The agreed issues however were whether there was a valid loan agreement between the parties; whether the second to fifth counter defendants were parties to the loan agreement; whether the first to fifth counter defendants jointly and severally misrepresented the contents and effect of the loan agreement and whether there is liability to pay the debt claimed by the plaintiff and what remedies are available to the parties.

The court found that there was a debt to be paid since the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a contract which is binding on both parties; the defendant was liable to pay the debt. Since the defendant signed the loan agreement personally with the plaintiff, she was to pay the money she owed them. However, since the second, third, fourth and fifth counter defendants misrepresented to the defendant the terms and contents of the loan agreement they were found liable in this respect and ordered to pay the defendant the equivalent of the principal sum which the defendant owed to the plaintiff. 
 

In this case the defendant raised a preliminary objection to the suit on grounds that the suit is time barred and that the High Court of Uganda has no jurisdiction to try the suit. The court stated that it could not decide on the issue of time until it makes a determination on whether it could exercise its jurisdiction in the matter. The court relied on article 139 of the Constitution and the rule that a contract cannot oust the jurisdiction of the high court and held that a clause to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the foreign court is enforceable by the High Court. However, the court stated that the jurisdiction of the court in such circumstances is subject to the plaintiff justifying the filing of the action in Uganda, for instance by proving that the defendant was using the exclusive jurisdiction clause to avoid liability. The court was satisfied that the plaintiff in this case had failed to do so. Accordingly, the court enforced the terms of the contract, sustained the preliminary objection and dismissed the suit with costs.