In February 2025 the high court addressed the critical issues of misdelivery and breach of contract. The court had to determine whether the defendant breached the contract by failing to deliver the agreed-upon animals and whether the misdelivery of the animals affected the enforceability of the contract. The court found that the defendant breached the contract.
The dispute arose from a contract between the claimant and the defendant for the sale and delivery of Damara Springbuck. The claimant agreed to purchase a specific number of Damara Springbuck, including a breeding ram, mature ewes, young ewes, and lambs. The defendant was required to deliver the animals to the claimant’s farm in Somerset East. The claimant paid a deposit for the animals, and the balance was to be paid upon delivery. The claimant alleged that the defendant failed to deliver the correct number and type of animals, and the animals delivered were not of the Damara ecotype as agreed.
The primary legal issues were whether the defendant breached the contract by failing to deliver the agreed-upon animals and whether the misdelivery of the animals affected the enforceability of the contract. The court had to determine if the defendant’s actions constituted a breach of contract and if the claimant was entitled to damages.
The court found that the defendant failed to deliver the agreed-upon number and type of animals. The evidence showed that the defendant delivered fewer animals than agreed, and the animals delivered were not of the Damara ecotype. The court also found that the defendant failed to deliver the breeding ram as agreed. The court concluded that the defendant’s actions constituted a material breach of the contract.
The court noted that the misdelivery of the animals deprived the claimant of the benefit of the contract and caused significant financial loss. The court emphasized that proper delivery of the agreed-upon animals was crucial for the enforceability of the contract. The court found that the misdelivery of the animals was a critical procedural flaw that affected the enforceability of the contract. The court ultimately found that the defendant breached the contract, and the plaintiff was entitled to cancel the contract
Giza Technologies (Pty) Ltd v De Buys (896/2017) [2025] ZAECMKHC 14 (18 February 2025)