Law Reports

Exdev (Pty) Ltd

Judgement delivered on 19 September 2007. Per Lewis, JA.

Of interest in this case is the following:
"[6] I turn thus to the issue to be decided. When the application for the interim interdict was argued, Yeoman Properties raised a point in limine: the option to purchase the property, it contended, was invalid because it was silent on the method of payment of the price and as to when payment had to be made. The high court accepted this argument. Regrettably it did not have regard to the basic principle, applied consistently in our law, that in the absence of express agreement on the time for and method of payment, the price is payable in cash against delivery - that is, in the case of immovable property, transfer.1 The court thus erred in finding on this basis, and its finding should not prejudice Exdev in subsequent litigation.

And at [7] An option to purchase immovable property (and of course a simple contract for the sale of immovable property), is not invalid merely because it does not set out the method of and time for payment. In the absence of express agreement the law implies these terms."

1 See, for example, Breytenbach v Van Wyk 1923 AD 541 at 546; Slomowitz v Van der Walt 1960 (4) SA 270 (T) at 275-276; Pienaar v Fortuin 1977 (4) SA 428 (T) at 429G-H and Kennedy v Botes 1979 (3) SA 836 (A). Contrast Patel v Adam 1977 (2) SA 653 (A), where the contract included a term relating to the payment of the price in instalments, but was held to be invalid because the amount of the instalments to be paid was left to the purchaser to determine.

Full judgement

Leave a comment:

Security Picture (click to change)
Word shown in picture:
menu close

Search Articles