About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Supreme Court of Appeal
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Supreme Court of Appeal
>>
2017
>>
[2017] ZASCA 39
|
|
Griesel and Others v Haasbroek (538/2016) [2017] ZASCA 39 (30 March 2017)
THE
SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
JUDGMENT
Not Reportable
Case
No: 538/2016
In the
matter between:
DR
DAVID GRIESEL
FIRST
APPELLANT
GLAUDINA
BOERDERY (EDMS) BEPERK SECOND
APPELLANT
DEVENCO
INVESTMENTS 60
(EDMS)
BEPERK
THIRD APPELLANT
and
PIET
HAASBROEK
RESPONDENT
Neutral citation:
Griesel
v Haasbroek
(538/2016)
[2017] ZASCA 39
(30 March 2017)
Coram:
Leach, Willis and Mbha JJA and
Molemela and Gorven AJJA
Heard
:
21 February
2017
Delivered:
30
March 2017
Summary:
Sale : action for
purchase price : express term as to risk passing to purchaser : ambit
of risk : risk event causing loss : purchase
price payable.
ORDER
On
appeal from:
North
West Division of the High Court, Mahikeng (Leeuw JP, Gura J and
Djaje AJ sitting as full court on appeal from Landman
J).
1
The appeal is upheld with costs.
2
The order of the full court of the North West Division of the High
Court, Mahikeng dismissing
the appeal from the High Court is set
aside and substituted by:
‘
1
The appeal against the order of the trial court of the North West
Division of the High Court, Mahikeng
is upheld with costs.
2
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the order of that court are set aside and
substituted by:
“
1
Judgment is granted in favour of the first plaintiff against the
first defendant for payment of
the sum of R1 146 302.53
together with interest on the said sum at the rate of 15.5% per annum
from 27 October 2009 to
date of payment.
2
The first defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiffs’ costs
incurred in respect
of the action against the first defendant.”’
JUDGMENT
Gorven
AJA
(Leach, Willis
and Mbha JJA and Molemela AJA concurring):
[1]
This appeal concerns
the question of who should suffer the loss arising from the death of
a bull buffalo (the disputed buffalo).
It died during an operation to
sedate it in order to draw blood to test for diseases (the
operation).
The
appellants were the plaintiffs in an action in the North West
Division of the High Court, Mahikeng (the trial court). They sued
the
respondent (Mr Haasbroek) as first defendant for the purchase
price of the disputed buffalo. I shall refer only to the
first
appellant (Dr Griesel) when referring to the appellants unless the
context requires specific reference. The veterinarian,
Dr Van
Zyl, who administered the sedative, was sued as second defendant on a
different cause of action. He was absolved from
the instance with
costs and takes no part in the appeal. Nothing further need therefore
be said about the claim against him.
[2]
The backdrop to the
appeal is as follows. Dr Griesel conducts a game farming operation
which includes around 50 buffaloes. The second
appellant owns the
farms on which it is conducted. These have been consolidated and are
farmed as one by Dr Griesel. I shall refer
to the consolidated farm
as his farm. The game on his farm is owned by the third appellant. Mr
Haasbroek also conducts a game farming
operation and his buffalo herd
is around 140 strong.
[3]
In the end, the claim
rested on three basic contentions: a sale agreement was concluded
with Mr Haasbroek; Mr Haasbroek expressly
agreed to assume the
risk of death or injury to the disputed buffalo arising from the
operation; and the death of the disputed
buffalo was caused by the
envisaged risk. Mr Haasbroek disputed all of these contentions.
[4]
The matter was heard by
Landman J in the trial court. The claim against Mr Haasbroek was
dismissed with costs. After being refused
by the trial court, leave
to appeal against this dismissal was granted by this court to the
full court of the North West Division.
The full court dismissed the
appeal with costs. The present appeal results from this Court having
granted special leave to appeal
against the judgment of the full
court.
[5]
The dispute arose as
follows. Dr Griesel
wished
to purchase three bull buffaloes from a distant seller. The
regulations require buffaloes to be disease free before they
can be
transported.
[1]
Blood tests are required for this purpose. Only if they are certified
disease free will a transport permit be granted. Permits
specify a
destination. In order to draw blood for the tests, buffaloes must be
sedated. This is generally done by shooting a dart
syringe containing
a sedative into the animal from a firearm. This is referred to as
darting the animal. In addition, skin tests
are often done. These
also require the sedation of the animal. Ordinarily, when buffaloes
are purchased, they are sedated at least
twice. First, for the blood
test. Secondly, so as to be placed onto the vehicle in which they are
to be transported.
[6]
As it turned out, Dr
Griesel purchased four, rather than three, bull buffaloes from the
distant seller. All four were tested and
found to be disease free.
Their horns were measured. A reduced price of R1 million per
buffalo plus VAT was agreed. Dr Griesel
knew that Mr Haasbroek was
interested in purchasing a bull buffalo and had in mind to offer one
of the four buffaloes to him.
[7]
To this end he sent an
email to Mr Haasbroek on 16 September 2009, attaching a photograph of
the disputed buffalo. He told him that
the horns measured 41 inches
and offered it to him for R1 million plus VAT and 25% of the
transport and attendant costs. Mr
Haasbroek expressed interest and
Dr Griesel felt that he had
agreed to take the disputed buffalo. Dr Griesel then attempted
to have the transport permit
amended so that three buffaloes would be
delivered to his farm and the disputed buffalo to that of
Mr Haasbroek. Before this
arrangement could be finalised,
however, Mr Haasbroek told him that he did not want the disputed
buffalo.
[8]
The buffaloes were
scheduled to arrive at Dr Griesel’s farm early on Wednesday, 14
October 2009. It was arranged that Mr Haasbroek
would attend the
offloading of the buffaloes. Accompanied by his son, Mr Haasbroek
flew his helicopter to Dr Griesel’s farm
that morning.
They met Dr Griesel at his holding
boma. While waiting for an official to break the seal on the vehicle
before the buffaloes were
released, those present climbed onto the
top of the vehicle and viewed the buffaloes through narrow slats.
[9]
Dr Griesel testified
that it was then and there on top of the vehicle that the sale
agreement was concluded. After he had pointed
out the disputed
buffalo, Mr Haasbroek said that he wanted it and asked the price. Dr
Griesel told him that the price had not changed
but specified that Mr
Haasbroek would have to assume the risk of death or injury arising
from the darting, sedation and drawing
of blood to test the disputed
buffalo. This was needed for a transport permit. Mr Haasbroek
agreed to all of this without
hesitation. He told Dr Griesel that he
would let him know when his vet could carry out the operation.
[10]
Mr Haasbroek contested
this version. He testified that he had not purchased the disputed
buffalo. He had simply indicated that he
was interested in it. He
said that he wanted it tested to ensure both that it was disease free
and that the horn measurement was
the claimed 41 inches. It was for
this purpose that the operation would be carried out. Whilst he
agreed to pay for the testing
and to use his own vet, no mention was
made of his assuming the risk of death or injury during and as a
result of the operation.
Mr Haasbroek maintained this position
throughout the trial and in the appeal before the full court.
[11]
It is common cause
that, if the disputed buffalo had been transported to Mr Haasbroek’s
farm from that of the distant seller,
as Dr Griesel had tried to
arrange, no further sedation would have been necessary. Also that,
after it was released from the truck
on that Wednesday morning, the
disputed buffalo would need to be sedated at least twice more; once
to be tested so as to obtain
a transport permit, and again to be
loaded onto the transport. It had recently been sedated on three
occasions; first for the blood
tests, secondly for tuberculin tests,
and thirdly to be loaded onto the transport to Dr Griesel’s
farm. The experts agreed
that, in those circumstances, the risk of
death or injury increases each time a buffalo is sedated. Put simply,
Dr Griesel felt
that Mr Haasbroek’s vacillation had
unnecessarily caused risk to the animal. Dr Griesel testified that
this was why he insisted
on Mr Haasbroek assuming the risk of death
or injury arising from the operation.
[12]
The buffaloes Dr
Griesel had purchased were subsequently released from the boma into
the open veld a few days after 14 October 2009.
The operation took
place on 27 October 2009. The Land Rover of Dr Griesel was used
to locate and identify the disputed buffalo.
It was among a herd of
40 or 50 buffaloes near a dense thicket of acacia bushes. Dr Van Wyk
fired and the dart struck the body
of the disputed buffalo in what
everyone present agreed was a good place. The herd, including the
disputed buffalo, responded by
running behind the acacia bushes for
about 40 or 50 metres before stopping. The disputed buffalo was not
followed immediately.
After a period of between four and five
minutes, the party set off in the Land Rover to locate the disputed
buffalo.
[13]
The empty dart syringe
was found near where the herd had stopped behind the acacia bushes.
Despite an exhaustive search on foot,
in the Land Rover and
eventually in Mr Haasbroek’s helicopter, the disputed buffalo
was not found. The party then returned
to Dr Griesel’s house
and it was agreed to try again a few days from then. However, later
that afternoon the disputed buffalo
was found dead.
The
evidence of the expert witnesses of both parties was that, because
the disputed buffalo had been darted, had lain on its side
and had
not been tracked down in time, the contents of its stomach were
regurgitated which led to it suffocating.
[14]
The trial court found
that an agreement for the sale of the disputed buffalo had been
concluded as claimed by Dr Griesel. It found
that Mr Haasbroek
had expressly agreed to assume the risk of death or injury arising
from the operation. It found that the
disputed buffalo died during
and as a result of the operation. The trial court held, however, that
the assumption of the risk by
Mr Haasbroek was subject to
non-interference in the operation by Dr Griesel. Since it found
that Dr Griesel had interfered
in the operation the trial court
reasoned that Dr Griesel bore the onus of showing that the disputed
buffalo had not died as a
result of his conduct. In its view, Dr
Griesel failed to discharge this onus. Despite finding that it could
not be said that Dr
Griesel caused the death of the disputed buffalo,
the trial court found that the conduct of Dr Griesel during the
events of 27
October 2009 was reprehensible and amounted to a
repudiation of the agreement. On that basis, it dismissed the claim
with costs.
[15]
The full court
supported the finding that an agreement of sale had been concluded.
It went on to hold that the sale was ‘
imperfecta
’
because there was an uncertain future event. This was whether the
disputed buffalo would test negative. This made the sale
subject to a
suspensive condition. The full court held that the common law
concerning the risk of
vis
major
or
casus
fortuitus
applied
to the passing of risk. This ignored the pertinent finding of the
trial court that express agreement had been reached on
the passing of
the specific risk arising from the operation. The full court agreed
with the trial court that the conduct of Dr
Griesel was
reprehensible. It found, however, that Dr Griesel’s conduct did
not amount to a repudiation of the contract,
as had been held by the
trial court. Instead, it found that Dr Griesel ‘to a great
extent contributed to the death of the
[disputed] buffalo.’ It
concluded that the risk had not passed to Mr Haasbroek.
[16]
In these findings, the
full court erred. It was correctly conceded before us that the common
law relating to risk in contracts which
are
perfecta
is not relevant to the risk assumed by Mr Haasbroek in the present
matter. Apart from anything else, the risk assumed by him was
limited
to death or injury arising from the operation. Neither were the
issues of
vis major
or
casus fortuitous
relevant. Also not relevant is the issue of whether the contract was
subject to a suspensive condition such as was found by the
full
court. It was correctly accepted on behalf of Mr Haasbroek in
argument that these considerations should have no bearing on
the
outcome of the appeal.
[17]
Before dealing with the
pertinent issues before us, it is necessary to dispose of an issue
raised by Mr Haasbroek. It was submitted
that the appeal should fail
because it was not established which of the appellants had allegedly
sold the disputed buffalo to him.
Despite the second appellant owning
the farms and the third appellant owning the game on them, it is
clear that Dr Griesel acted
on his own behalf. It is common cause
that, prior to the delivery of an invoice after the death of the
disputed buffalo, no mention
had been made by Dr Griesel to Mr
Haasbroek of the other two appellants. At no stage was there any
indication that he was
selling the disputed buffalo on behalf of
either of the other appellants. There is no bar to his having sold
buffaloes belonging
to the third appellant.
[2]
Any sale agreement which resulted was accordingly one between Dr
Griesel and Mr Haasbroek. If, therefore, it is found that
Mr Haasbroek
is liable for the purchase price, the judgment must
be in favour of Dr Griesel.
[18]
By
the
time
the present appeal
was heard, it had been conceded by
Mr Haasbroek that a sale agreement had been concluded. At the
appeal hearing, it was conceded
that it was an express term of the
agreement that Mr Haasbroek would assume the risk of death or injury
to the disputed buffalo
during the operation. In other words, the
express risk term pleaded by Dr Griesel was conceded to be a term of
the sale agreement.
No qualifications or alternatives to this term
were pleaded such as that the risk would revert to Dr Griesel if he
interfered in
the operation or anything of the sort. In the light of
the background and probabilities of the matter, highlighted above, it
seems
to me that both of these concessions were appropriate.
[19]
Once these issues were
conceded, the only remaining question, according to Dr Griesel, was
whether the risk eventuated. The heads
of argument of Mr Haasbroek
conceded that the disputed buffalo ‘died as a result of the
darting process.’ This
is consonant with the evidence of the
expert witnesses called by both Mr Haasbroek and Dr Griesel. It also
accords with a reading
of the evidence as a whole. It was therefore
correctly conceded that the disputed buffalo died during and as a
result of the operation.
[20]
Consequently, it must
be accepted that all three contentions of Dr Griesel, referred to at
the beginning of this judgment, were
established. He accordingly
submitted that, in these circumstances, the appeal should succeed and
that he was entitled to an order
that Mr Haasbroek pay the purchase
price of the disputed buffalo.
[21]
Mr Haasbroek met this
submission along the following lines. The claim was for specific
performance. In a sale agreement, the purchase
price can only be
claimed against delivery. A seller may be excused performance by way
of delivery if it is proved that there was
a supervening
impossibility of performance. However, this is not so if that
impossibility is self-created. For this reason, not
only did Dr
Griesel have to prove the agreement, the express term relating to
risk and that the risk had eventuated, but in addition
he bore an
onus to show that the death was not caused by his conduct.
[22]
This submission fails
to appreciate the contractual position. The case of Dr Griesel was
not based on being excused delivery on
the basis of supervening
impossibility of performance. The case pleaded and established was
that the parties were aware that between
the sale and the delivery, a
high risk event was going to occur in the form of the operation. The
parties agreed that Mr Haasbroek
assumed the risk of death or
injury to the disputed buffalo if it arose from this high risk event.
The risk arising from other
events was left intact. In other words,
the common law term of a sale agreement which would normally require
delivery by Dr Griesel
had been varied by agreement between the
parties. If the risk assumed by Mr Haasbroek eventuated, he would
suffer the loss arising
from it. This means that, if during and as a
result of the operation the disputed buffalo died or was injured, Dr
Griesel would
not be obliged to deliver the disputed buffalo alive or
in a healthy condition, depending on which of those risks occurred.
The
risk which eventuated was the death of the disputed buffalo
during and as a result of the operation. The law concerning
supervening
impossibility of performance and the issue of whether any
impossibility was self-created or not was therefore not of
application.
[23]
Mr Haasbroek persisted
in submitting that the onus lay on Dr Griesel to prove that he had
not caused the death of the disputed buffalo.
He submitted that in
the plea and further particulars, this issue was squarely raised. He
relied on five averments in these documents
to support this
submission. It is therefore necessary to consider those averments to
establish if they have the consequence contended
for.
[24]
The first averment
relied on is in the plea to paragraph 8 in the particulars of claim.
In the previous paragraph of the plea, it
was admitted that
Mr Haasbroek had instructed Dr Van Zyl to carry out the
operation. Paragraph 8 averred that, on 27 October
2009 and pursuant
to that instruction, Dr Van Zyl administered a sedative by darting
the disputed buffalo, Mr Haasbroek pleaded
as follows:
‘
Save to
mention that the sedation of the buffalo took place under the direct
supervision and as indicated and prescribed by [Dr
Griesel], these
averments are admitted.’
[3]
[25]
The second averment
relied on is in the plea to paragraph 9. This paragraph averred that
after the disputed buffalo was darted,
it ran away, could not be
found and died later that day. The first two of these averments were
admitted but the third was denied.
Paragraph 6.3 of the plea went on:
‘
In particular,
[Mr Haasbroek] avers that after the buffalo was darted, [Dr Griesel]
instructed that the buffalo should not be followed
immediately.’
[4]
[26]
The third averment is
in response to further particulars sought from Mr Haasbroek as
to what had been meant by the averment
in the plea to paragraph 8
that the operation took place under the direct supervision and as
indicated and prescribed by Dr
Griesel. The response as to what was
meant by this aspect of the plea was:
‘
On the day of
the operation [Dr Griesel] prescribed how, where and by what
procedure the buffalo should be darted and sedated.’
[5]
[27]
The fourth averment
relied on is the response to a request for further particulars to an
aspect of paragraph 6.3 of the plea referred
to above. Mr Haasbroek
was asked who, according to him, was in control of the operation. He
responded that it was Dr Griesel.
[28]
The fifth averment
relied on also arose from a request for further particulars to that
aspect of paragraph 6.3 of the plea which
averred that Dr Griesel
gave an instruction not to immediately follow the disputed buffalo.
It asked to whom this instruction
had been given. Mr Haasbroek’s
response was that it had been given to Dr Van Wyk after the latter
had indicated that it should
be followed.
[29]
In his heads of
argument, Mr Haasbroek also sought to rely on aspects of the plea of
Dr Van Wyk in his capacity as the second defendant.
The only
additional averments in this were that Dr Griesel instructed that the
helicopter not be used but required the operation
to be conducted
from the Land Rover. I can find no basis to uphold the submission
that these averments, taken separately or as
a whole, raised the
issue that Dr Griesel was required to prove that his actions were not
the cause of death of the disputed buffalo.
[30]
Mr Haasbroek submitted
before us, somewhat faintly, that the issues had been broadened to
include this requirement by the leading
of evidence during the trial.
This is, of course, permissible when the issues are squarely and
fully raised and dealt with in the
evidence.
[6]
Evidence was led to prove that the
disputed buffalo died during and as a result of the operation. This
was necessary to prove that
the specific risk assumed by Mr Haasbroek
had eventuated. Without that proof, Dr Griesel would have failed in
his claim. On the
most generous reading of the evidence, it cannot be
said that the issue that Dr Griesel should prove that he was not the
cause
of death was squarely and fully dealt with. It simply was not
raised as an issue during the trial. The submission that the issues
were broadened to include this cannot be upheld.
[31]
Even if the submission
had merit, on a proper reading of the evidence the conclusions drawn
by the trial court concerning the conduct
of Dr Griesel cannot be
supported. Mr Haasbroek was correctly found to have been a poor
witness and the version of Dr Griesel as
to the conclusion of the
agreement was correctly preferred. This is supported by the belated
concessions made on behalf of Mr Haasbroek.
The conduct of Dr Griesel
complained of related to the events of 27 October 2009. The
trial court found that no reliance
could be placed on Dr Griesel’s
evidence concerning the events of that day. The finding was based on
the trial court’s
assessment of the probabilities, not on the
performance of Dr Griesel as a witness. There were two essential
criticisms of
his conduct relied upon.
[32]
The first was that he
insisted that the entire operation be carried out from the Land Rover
and that the helicopter should not be
used at all. This was, however,
not what the evidence disclosed. There was clearly a misunderstanding
between Dr Griesel and the
members of Mr Haasbroek’s party as
to the extent of his suggested use of the Land Rover. It is common
cause that, on arriving
at the farm and while they were enjoying a
cup of coffee, they asked Dr Griesel how things would be done. He
said that they should
use the Land Rover to identify the disputed
buffalo since the herd was accustomed to the Land Rover and they
could get closer that
way. Mr Haasbroek and Dr Van Wyk said that
they were under the impression that Dr Griesel wanted the entire
operation to be
conducted from the Land Rover. However, Dr Griesel
testified that he believed that the darting would and should be done
from the
helicopter. He himself had only ever conducted darting
operations in the open veld from helicopters and not from land based
vehicles.
He was in fact surprised when Dr Van Wyk climbed into the
Land Rover with the firearm and his kit for the operation. In any
event,
once he responded in the way he did, not only was no challenge
raised by Mr Haasbroek and Dr Van Wyk, they did not even
request clarification.
[33]
The second criticism
arose during the operation itself. Once the dart was fired and the
herd began to run, Dr Van Wyk and Mr Boshoff
said that they should
set off after the disputed buffalo. Dr Griesel, who was driving the
Land Rover, responded that they
should wait a few minutes. There
is a dispute as to whether he was merely expressing an opinion or, as
was pleaded, whether he
instructed Dr Van Wyk not to follow
immediately. He and Dr Van Wyk both testified that he had expressed
an opinion. What is not
in dispute is that, when Dr Griesel said
this, no voice of protest was raised. Nor was any demand made of him
that he do so. Mr
Haasbroek did not respond at all. When Dr Griesel
was asked why he took that view, he testified that if they had set
off then,
there was a strong likelihood that the herd would scatter.
This would have made it very difficult to locate and follow the
disputed
buffalo. Since the dart had struck in a good place, he
expected that the disputed buffalo would collapse in three or four
minutes
and be easy to locate. There is no indication that this view
was not reasonable or at least reasonably held by him.
[34]
It can scarcely be
concluded that, in the circumstances, Dr Griesel’s conduct in
these regards was deserving of criticism
or could be said to have
caused or contributed to the death of the disputed buffalo. It
certainly did not warrant the finding that
his conduct was
reprehensible.
[35]
In the result, there
was no basis for the trial court or the full court to deny Dr Griesel
his claim. There was agreement that Mr
Haasbroek would purchase the
disputed buffalo. There was agreement that he would assume the risk
of death arising from the operation.
The operation resulted in the
death of the disputed buffalo. The risk accordingly eventuated. Mr
Haasbroek is thus liable for the
purchase price of the disputed
buffalo. The amount claimed as the purchase price is not disputed.
There was no suggestion that
costs should not follow the result.
The following
order is made:
1
The appeal is upheld with costs.
2
The order of the full court of the North West Division of the High
Court, Mahikeng dismissing
the appeal from the High Court is set
aside and substituted by:
‘
1
The appeal against the order of the trial court of the North West
Division of the High Court, Mahikeng
is upheld with costs.
2
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the order of that court are set aside and
substituted by:
“
1
Judgment is granted in favour of the first plaintiff against the
first defendant for payment of
the sum of R1 146 302.53
together with interest on the said sum at the rate of 15.5% per annum
from 27 October 2009 to
date of payment.
2
The first defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiffs’ costs
incurred in respect
of the action against the first defendant.”’
________________________
T
R Gorven
Acting
Judge of Appeal
Appearances
For the Appellants:
MC Maritz SC
Instructed by: Dr. Hardus van der
Westhuizen Inc
Symington & De Kok Attorneys,
Bloemfontein
For the
Respondent: JG Bergenthuin
SC (with him CAC Korf)
Instructed by: Kotzé Low & Swanepoel
Phatshoane Henney Attorneys,
Bloemfontein
[1]
Animal Diseases Regulations, GN R2026,
GG
10469, 26 September 1986 promulgated in terms of the Animal Diseases
Act 35 of 1984.
[2]
Voet
18.1.14;
Transvaal Mortgage Loan and Finance Co
Ltd v Aronson
1904 T S 864
at 866. In
Frye’s (Pty) Ltd v Ries
1957 (3) SA 575
(A) at 581A-B this court held, ‘there can be
no doubt that neither a sale nor a lease is void merely because the
seller
or lessor is not the owner of the property sold or leased.’
In
Mighty Solutions t/a Orlando Service
Station v Engen Petroleum Ltd & another
[2015] ZACC 34
;
2016 (1) SA 621
(CC) para 28, the Constitutional
Court approved the dictum in
Frye’s
in relation to a lease.
[3]
My translation. The original read:
‘
Buiten om te
vermeld dat die verdowing van die buffel geskied het onder direkte
toesig en soos aangewys en voorgeskryf deur [Dr
Griesel], word die
besonderhede hierin vervat erken.’
[4]
My translation. The original read:
‘
In die
besonder beweer [Mnr Haasbroek] dat [Dr Griesel] opdrag gegee het na
die pyl van die buffel, dat die buffel nie onmiddellik
gevolg moes
word nie.’
[5]
My translation. The original read:
‘
Op die dag
van die verdowing het [Dr Griesel] voorgeskryf hoe, waar en volgens
welke prosedure die buffel gepyl en gedoof moes
word.’
[6]
Robinson v Randfontein Estates GM Co Ltd
1925
AD 173
at 198;
Shill v Milner
1937 AD 101.