About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Supreme Court of Appeal
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Supreme Court of Appeal
>>
1984
>>
[1984] ZASCA 71
|
|
Melmoth Town Board v Marius Mostert (Pty) Ltd. (375/1982) [1984] ZASCA 71; [1984] 2 All SA 412 (A) ; 1984 (3) SA 718 (A) (30 May 1984)
LL
Case No. 375/1982
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH A
F
RICA APPELLATE DIVISION
In the appeal of:
MELMOTH TOWN BOARD
Appellant
and
M
ARIUS MOSTERT (PTY) LIMI
TED Respondent
CORAM
: JANSEN, MILLER, VILJOEN, VAN HEERDEN,
JJA et GALGUT AJA
HEARD
: 7 MAY 1984
DELIVERED
: 30 MAY 1984
JUDGMENT
/
VAN HEERDEN,
JA
...
2.
VAN HEERDEN, JA
:
This is an appeal against a judgment given by
Friedman, J, in the Durban and Coast Local Division in a matter which came
before him
by way of a special case stated in terms of Rule 33 of the Rules of
Court. The salient facts set out in and incorporated by the special
case are as
follows.
During 1977 the parties entered into a written agreement in terms of
which the respondent, a civil en-gineering construction contractor,
was to carry
out con-struction works in regard to a certain dam. The tender price was the sum
of R110 396, which amount fell to be
adjusted
inter alia
if variations
were ordered by
/the ...
3
the engineer in terms of clause 52 of the printed "general conditions of
contract" (issued by the S.A. Institution of Civil Engineers
for use in
connection with works of civil engineering construction, and to which I shall
refer as "the contract"). The respon- dent
carried out a substantial part of the
works and also gave effect to a number of variations duly ordered by the
engineer. Eventually,
however, the engineer cer-tified that the respondent was
in default of its obliga-tions, and the appellant then gave the respondent
written notice, as it was entitled to do in terms of clause 65 (1) of the
contract, of its intention to enter upon the site and to
expel the respondent
from the works. Pursuant
/thereto"...
4.
thereto the appellant took over the site and caused the works
to be completed partly by its own employees and partly by another
contractor.
One of the variations related to excavation in the so-called
spillway channel. As a result of the variation the quantity of material
which
had to be ex-cavated was increased from 14 000 m
3
(the figure
con-tained in the Schedule of Quantities) to more than 35 000 m
3
.
Prior to his expulsion from the site the respondent had excavated a portion of
the additional material by blasting. A dispute then
arose between the appellant
and the engineer on the one hand and the respondent on the other hand. The
dispute related to
/the ...
5.
the quantities of "hard rock excavated" and of "hard rock
excavated by blasting where authorised", for which categories different
rates
were provided under items B.5 and B.6 of the Schedule of Quantities. A mediator,
to whom the dispute was eventually referred
in terms of clause 69 (2) of the
contract, decided that 75% of the material blasted was to be paid for under item
B.6 and the balance
under item B.5. Thereafter the parties agreed that the total
quantity blasted was 20 000 m
3
. (The appellant required the decision
to be referred to arbitration but later abandoned its rights in this regard.
Consequently the
decision of the mediator became binding upon the parties by
virtue of clause 69 (2)
/of ...
6
of the contract.)
After completion of the works the engineer is-
sued a final certificate which reflected that an amount of R17 962,51 was
payable by the respondent to the ap-pellant. That was done
in accordance with
the provi-sions of clause 65 (3) which read as follows:
"(3) If the Employer shall enter and expel the Contractor under this Clause,
he shall not be liable to pay to the Contractor any money
on account of the
Contract until completion of the entire Works or the expiration of the Period of
Maintenance, as the case may be,,
and there-after until the costs of completion
and (where specified) maintenance, penalty (if any) and all other expenses
incurred
by the Employer have been ascertained and the amount thereof certified
by the Engineer. The Contractor shall then be entitled to
receive only such sum
or sums (if any) as the Engineer may certify would have been due to him upon due
completion by him after
/deducting ...
7.
deducting the said amount. But if such amount
shall exceed
the sum which would have been pay-
able to the Contractor on due completion
by him
then the Contractor shall upon demand pay to
the Employer the
amount of such excess and it
shall be deemed a debt due by the
Contractor
to the Employer and shall be recoverable accord-
ingly."
In the certificate the respondent was initially credited with more than R100
000 in respect of the afore-said excavation by blasting.
In so doing the
engineer gave effect to the decision of the mediator and the parties' agreement.
Had that valuation not been al-tered,
the hypothetical sum which would have been
due to the respondent had he duly completed the works (minus amounts already
paid) would
have exceeded by a substan-tial amount the costs etc. which fell to
be subtracted
/in ...
8 in terms of clause 65 (3). However, purporting, to apply the
provisions of clause 54 the engineer deduc-ted from the valuation an
amount of
R57 724,12. I shall revert to the grounds upon which the engineer sought to
justify that deduction.
On the strength of the certificate the appellant
instituted action against the respondent for payment of the sum of R17 962,51.
The
respondent filed a plea and a counterclaim, alleging that the engineer had
not been entitled to make the deduction. Consequently
the respondent sought an
order setting aside the final certificate.
In the special case stated by the parties two
/questions ...
9.
questions were formulated for decision by the court a
quo
. During argument it became common cause, however, that only the first
question required an answer since it was wide enough to cover
the contentions of
the parties. That question was stated as follows:
"Was the engineer entitled. In terms of clause 54 of the contract, to adjust
the contract price in the manner, and on the basis, reflected
in the final
certificate read with the appendix to Variation Order No 8?"
(The appendix to variation order No. 8 contains the engineer's reasons for
deducting the sum of R57 724,13.)
The parties agreed that in the event of the court a quo answering the
question in the affirmative
/there ...
10.
there should be judgment for the appellant as prayed in the
summons, and that in the event of a negative answer there should be judgment
for
the respondent. Friedman, J, answered the question in the negative. Hence he
gave judgment for the respondent with costs on the
main claim and counterclaim,
which resulted in the final certificate being set aside.
It is convenient at
this stage to refer to the material provisions of clauses 51 and 52 of the
contract. Clause 51 (1) empowers the
engineer to make any variation of the form,
quality or quantity of the works or any part thereof that may in his opinion be
necessary.
Clause 52 (1) provides that the amount (if any) to be
/added ...
11.
added to or deducted from the sum named in the tender in
respect of any extra or additional work done or work
omitted by a
variation order has to be determined by
the engineer. All such work must be
valued at the
rates set out in the contract if in the engineer's
opinion
they are applicable. (Since the Schedule of
Quantities did contain rates
which were applicable to
the additional excavation done by the respondent, the
further provisions
of clause 52 (1) are not material.)
Clause 52 (2) reads as follows:
"Provided that if the nature or amount of any omission, addition, increase or
decrease in quantity ... relative to the nature or amount
of the whole contract
or part thereof, shall be such that it results in a change in method or scale of
operation, process of construction
/or ...
12
or source of supply, such as in the opinion of the Engineer renders the
rate or price contained in the Contract for any item of the
Works by reason of
such ommission, addition, increase or decrease of quantity unreasonable or
inap-plicable, the Engineer in agreement
with the Contractor shall fix such
other rate or price so far as possible consistent with the rates or prices set
out in the Contract
as in the cir-cumstances he shall think reasonable and
proper.
Provided also that no increase of the Contract Price under Sub-Clause (1) of
this Clause or variation of rate or price under Sub-Clause
(2) of this Clause
shall be made unless, as soon as is practicable, and in the case of extra or
additional work before the commencement
of the work or as soon thereafter as is
practicable, notice shall have been given in writing:
(a)
by the Contractor to the
Engineer of his intention to claim extra payment or a varied rate
or
(b)
by the Engineer to the Contractor of
his intention to vary a rate or price
/as ...
13.
as the case may be."
Clause 52 (3) provides that in the
absence of agreement the rate or price proposed by the engineer shall apply
without prejudice to
the contractor's right "to obtain settlement of the
disagreement in ac-cordance with Clause 69 hereof", i.e., the right to refer
the
dispute to a mediator and, if necessary, to arbitration. The engineer's powers
to fix a new rate or price are therefore regulated
by clause 52 (2), read with
clause 52 (3), but in order to avoid repeti-tion I shall, when referring to such
powers, only men-tion
the former subsection.
It can be inferred from the final certificate
/that ...
14.
that the respondent did notify the engineer of his intention to claim extra
payment for the additional excavation in the spillway.
The appellant failed to
allege, however, that the engineer gave notice in writing to the respondent of
his intention to vary the
rates applicable to such excavation, and it is indeed
common cause that he did not do so. Nor did the engineer purport to invoke
clause 52 (2) when making the aforesaid deduction in his final certificate. It
is indeed clear that he relied solely on clause 54
which, in so far as it is
material, provides:
"Unless otherwise provided, if the nett effect of all variations as valued in
accordance with Sub-Clauses 52 (1) and 52 (2) hereof
... shall be found on
completion of the whole of the
/Works ...
15.
Works to have resulted in a reduction or an , addition
greater than 15 per cent of the sum named in the Tender, such variation shall
not in any way vitiate or invalidate the contract but the amount of the Contract
Price shall be further increased or decreased by
such sum (if any) as in the
opinion of the Engineer shall be reasonable, regard being had to all material
and relevant factors directly
consequent upon or directly affected by such
reduction or addition including the Contractor's oncosts and overheads."
In terms of clause 1 (f) "contract price" means
the sum named in the
tender subject to such additions thereto or deductions therefrom as may be made
from time to time under the provisions
of the contract.
The sum named in the respondent's tender was in fact increased by more than
100% as a result of all the variations duly valued by
the engineer in
accordance
/with ...
16.
with subclauses 52 (1) and 52 (2), and in the
special case the appellant accordingly contended that the engineer had been
entitled
to invoke the power conferred upon him by the provisions of clause 54.
The respondent's main contentions were that the engineer could
only increase,
and not reduce, the contract price,
made up of the tender price plus the valuation of all additional work brought
about by variation orders, and alternatively that the
engineer could not deduct
an amount on the basis reflected in the final certificate.
Before dealing with the reasoning of the court a
quo
it is necessary
to dispose of a question which
/was ...
17.
was raised during argument before this Court. In the
appellant's declaration it was alleged that by the written notice (already
referred
to) given in terms of clause 65 (1) the respondent terminated the
contract, and in the special case it was stated that the appellant
was entitled
to, and did, act in terms of that subclause with the result,
inter alia
,
that the appellant terminated the contract. All that created the impression that
the contract had been duly cancelled and the question
arose whether clause 54
could find application after termination of the contract. However, the notice in
question was attached to
the declaration, and it is quite clear that the
appellant did not purport
/to ...
18.
to cancel the contract. Indeed, in the material portion of the document the
respondent was merely given notice of the appellant's
intention "to enter upon
the site and the works and to expel you [the respondent] therefrom after seven
days of receipt of this notice."
In so doing the appellant was invoking the
competence conferred by clause 65 (1) which provides that in certain
contingencies, including
breach of contract by the respondent, "the Employer
[the appellant] may, after giving 7 days notice in writing to the contractor
[the respondent], enter upon the Site and the Works and expel the Contractor
therefrom without thereby avoiding the contract or releasing
the Contractor from
any of
/his ...
19.
his obligations or liabilities under the Contract or affecting the rights and
powers conferred on the Em-ployer or the Engineer by
the Contract." It is
ap-parent, therefore, that in neither the declaration nor the special case was
the word "terminated" used in
the sense of "cancelled" but rather to convey the
notion that the respondent's right to complete the works had been brought to an
end.
It will be recalled that under clause 65 (3) the engineer had to
calculate the hypothetical sum which would have been due to the respondent
had
he duly com-pleted the works. In order to make the calculation the engineer had
to take into account his valuation of
/variations ...
20.
variations of the works. Had the respondent actually completed the works, and
had the nett effect of all variations valued in accordance
with subclauses 52
(1) and 52 (2) resulted in a reduction or addition greater than 15% of the
tender price, clause 54 would have
been applicable. Since, notwitstanding the
expulsion of the respondent, the engineer retained the rights and powers
conferred upon
him by the contract, it seems clear that in calculating the
hypothetical amount the engineer remained entitled to invoke the provisions
of
that clause.
It is apparent from the judgment of the court a
quo
that there was
some debate as to the scope of the
/introductory ...
21.
introductory phrase of clause 54, viz., "Unless otherwise
provided". It does not appear, however, that the court attached any real
significance to the use of the phrase and before this Court it became common
cause, rightly, in my view, that it is of no assistance
in answering the
question posed in the special case.
I turn now to the trial court's reasons
for answering the question in the negative. In the first place the court found
that the use
of the word "further", which precedes the words "increased or
decreased" in clause 54, militates against a construction according
to which the
engineer may "further" increase the contract price if there has been a nett
reduction of the
/tender ...
22.
tender price as a result of variations, or may
"further"
decrease the contract price if there has been a nett
increase of
the tender price. In this regard the
court said:
"... it seems to me that the normal and natural meaning of the word 'further'
in the context in which it appears in clause 54 is such
as to render it apposite
to the earlier reference to the contract being reduced or made greater. In my
view the language of clause
54, looked at sim-ply at a linguistic level,
indicates that where there has been more than a 15% addition to the contract
price there
can be "a further increase" and where there has been a more than 15%
reduc-tion in the purchase price there can be "a further decrease".
In my view
to suggest that where the contract price has by reason of the variations been
increased by more than 15% there can be
"a further decrease" is linguistic
non-sense and, at lowest, strains the ordinary mean-ing to be attached to the
words used. Mr.
Hurt's argument involves having regard to the
/words ...
23.
words "increased or decreased" following the word "further"
as meaning no more nor less than "adjusted". If this is what the parties
had
intended it would have been very simple for them to have said so."
It follows, as was pointed out by counsel for the appellant, that according
to the construction adopted by the court a
quo
the word "further" must be
regarded as accentuating, separately, the preceding words "re-duction" and
"addition". In the process
of arriving at that construction the fact that the
words following on "further" have been transposed to read "increased or
decreased"
and not "decreased or increased" (compared with the previous order of
"a reduction or an addition") was in effect ignored; the learned
judge remarking
that
/the ...
24.
the transposition was perhaps a little bit strange but not
attaching any significance thereto.
It must be conceded that the phraseology
of clause 54 is capable of bearing the construction placed upon it by the court
a
quo
. But in my opinion it is also open to a different interpretation.
As in the case of statutes, the contextual approach to the interpretation
of a
word or a phrase in a contract requires that regard must be had not only to the
language of the rest of the provision concerned
or of the contract as a whole,
but also to considerations such as the apparent scope and purpose of the
provision (cf
Jaga v Dönges, N O and Another
,
1950 (4) S A 653
(A)
662)..
/Now...
25.
Now, it is difficult to think of a reason why the draftsman
of clause 54 would have intended the engineer to have the power to increase
the
contract price only if there had been an initial
increase
(of more than
15%) of the tender price as a result of variations, or why he would have
intended the power to reduce the contract
price to be exercised only if there
had been an initial
decrease
of the tender price. The clause enjoins the
engineer to have regard to all material and relevant factors directly consequent
upon
or directly affected by the initial reduction or addition, including the
contractor's oncosts and overheads, and such factors may
call for an increase of
the contract price even if
/there ...
26..
there has been an initial reduction of the tender price, and
vice
versa. For example, a substantial omission of part of the works and
a resultant reduction of, say, 40%, of the tender price may well
have a
deleterious effect on costs built into the tender price, such as the rental of
machinery leased for a period calculated with
reference to the scope of the
original works. In the postulated case the increased ratio between costs and the
reduced contract price
would probably be a material factor directly consequent
upon the reduction, but on the trial court's construction of clause 54 the
engineer would be powerless to increase the reduced tender price.
/Having ...
27. Having regard to the manifest purpose of clause 54, i.e.,
to enable the engineer to adjust the contract price either upwards or
downwards
provided the tender price has been altered by more than 15% as a result of
variations valued in accordance with clauses
52 (1) and 52 (2), it seems clear
to me that the word "further" was used in the sense of "furthermore" or "in
addition". That being
so, it was a matter of indifference to the draftsman
whether he employed the phrase "increased or decreased" rather than the phrase
"decreased or increased". All that he intended, and that the parties must be
taken to have intended, was that the engineer should
have a residual power to
adjust the contract price under the,
/circumstances ...
28.
circumstances set out in clause 54. In
casu
the
engineer was therefore not precluded from reducing the contract price merely
because the nett effect of all relevant variations
had resulted in an initial
increase of the tender price.
In order to appreciate the trial court's second
reason for answering the question in the negative it is necessary to refer to
the
grounds upon which the engineer justified his invocation of clause 54. They
may be summarised as follows. Subsequent to the conclusion
of the contract the
quantity of excavation required to be done in the spillway channel was increased
from the scheduled provisional
quantity of 14 000 m
3
to more than
/35 000 m
3
...
29.
35 000 m
3
. That included some 20 000
m
3
of hard rock which was much more than the provisional quantity of
2 600 m
3.
The respondent succeeded in negotiating a favourable price
with a blasting subcontractor who carried out the necessary drilling and
blasting for a charge of R28 624,40. Allowing for "oncosts" of 35% and a profit
of 15% a reasonable compensation for the excavation
in hard rock was therefore
R44 439,38. However, a valuation of the excavation under the relevant items of
the Schedule of Quantities
yielded a price of R102 163,50, i.e., R57 724,12 in
excess of a reasonable compensation.
The engineer concluded as follows:
/"From ...
30.
"From the above it is clear that the increase in quantity of
work required to be done enabled the Contractor to obtain a more favourable
price for blasting than he could have done on the basis of the relatively small
quantities provided for in the Tender. Therefore
as the increase in quantities
arose directly from the orders of the Employer, it is fair and reasonable to
require that the assessed
'excess' be for the benefit of the Employer.
Whence the amount of
R57 724-12
is to be deducted from the Scheduled
valuation
of work done."
It will be seen that the
engineer first of all increased that portion of the tender price relating to
excavation by blasting in the
spillway channel to allow for the additional work,
and then deducted a very substantial amount from his initial valuation of the
excavated quantities. In the judgment of the court a quo
/clause ...
31 . clause 54 did not empower the engineer to make that
deduction. The reasoning of the court ran along these lines. The power of
the
engineer to invoke clause 54 is qualified inter
alia
by the words "regard
being had to all material and relevant" factors
directl
y conse
quent
upon or directly affected
by such reduction or addition including the
contractor's oncosts and overheads." (My underlining.) The underlined words
refer to
items in the contract other than those the extent of which have been
increased or decreased, but which have been affected by the
increase or
decrease, e.g., the contractor's oncosts and overheads. The provisions of clause
54 and clause 52 therefore deal with
two complementary
/matters ...
32. matters. Whilst clause 52 makes provision for alteration
in the rates of the very items involved in the additional or reduced
work,
clause 54 provides for "consequential" adjustment flowing from such work.
Therefore "the concluding words of clause 54 are
entirely inconsistent with the
notion that acting under clause 54 the engineer can further increase or decrease
the amount payable
in respect of those very items which have caused the contract
price to be increased or decreased by the 15% provided for by the clause."
It appears to me that the court a
quo
took a somewhat narrow view of
the scope of clauses 54 and 52 (2). Firstly, clause 52 (2) empowers the
/engineer ...
33.
engineer to fix another rate or price if in his opinion "the
rate or price contained in the contract
for any item of the work
s" (my
underlining) is rendered unreasonable or inapplicable by reason of an omission,
addition, increase or decrease of quantity
having the effect set out in that
subclause. The underlined words make it quite clear that if, e.g., a portion of
item A is omitted,
a different rate may be fixed for the remainder of that item
or for any other item in the Schedule of Quantities. Hence I cannot
agree with
the trial court's view that clause 52 provides only for an alteration in the
rates of the "very items" involved in the
additional or reduced work.
/Secondly ...
34.
Secondly, the learned judge erred, in my view, in regarding
the contractor's "oncosts and overheads" (specifically mentioned in clause
54)
as separate items which may be affected by a variation increasing or decreasing
the extent of other items. From experience one
knows that, apart from
preliminary expenses, the contractor's profit and overheads are not usually
separately priced in the Schedule
of Quantities. They are, in fact, built into
the rates for the various concrete components of the works. In
casu
the
Schedule of Quantities was not attached to the pleadings or the special case,
but it can be inferred from the engineer's final
certificate that the rates
under items
/B.5 ...
35.
B.5 and B.6 included oncosts and profit in respect of excavation by blasting.
Consequently, a valuation of the increased quantities
of excavated hard rock in
accordance with the said rates would automatically have affected the oncosts and
profit built into those
rates.
But although the reasoning of the court a
quo
cannot be fully supported, I am nevertheless of the view that clauses
54 and 52 (2) were designed to cover different situations, and
that the engineer
may not under the guise of applying the provisions of clause 54 in effect invoke
the powers conferred upon him
by clause 52 (2). Counsel for the appellant
submitted
/that ...
36.
that one of the "material and relevant factors
directly consequent upon or directly affected by such
reduction or addition" (clause 54) would be the result that the contractor is
deriving an excessive profit from the contract as a
result of the overall
variation of the tender price. There can be no quarrel with that submission
provided that the word "overall"
is accentuated. I say so because it is clear
that the words "such reduction or addition" refers back to a "reduction or ...
addition
greater than 15 per cent of the sum named in the Tender" resulting from
the nett effect of all variations as valued in accordance
with clause 52 (1) and
(2). Hence the engineer is enjoined
/to ...
37.
to have regard to the effect of the overall reduction or
addition, and not merely the effect of an increase or decrease in the tender
price brought about by a particular variation. By contrast, when considering
whether clause 52 (2) falls to be applied, the engineer
has to determine the
effect of a particular variation on the reasonableness (or applicability) of the
rate or price for a specific
item or items of the works.
In the present case
the engineer, whilst purporting to apply the provisions of clause 54, in fact
sought to invoke clause 52 (2).
It is apparent that he had regard to the effect
of only one of the variation orders on the reasonableness of the rates for two
items
/in ...
38.
in the Schedule of Quantities. He considered that the
valuation of the additional excavation according to those rates resulted in
the
respondent making an excessive profit in respect of the quantities excavated by
blasting, and therefore sought to substitute
a valuation which in his view made
provision for a reasonable profit. Since those quantities were fixed, the result
was that the
engineer determined lesser rates than those provided for under
items B.5 and B.6. That he was not entitled to do. In the first place,
and as
already pointed out, clause 54 requires a consideration of the effect of the
overall increase or decrease of the tender price,
and not of the effect of an
increase
/or ...
41.
and on the basis, reflected in the final certificate and that the question
for decision was therefore correctly answered by the court
a quo.
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
H.J.O. VAN HEERDEN JA
JANSEN JA
MILLER JA
CONCUR
VILJOEN JA
GALGUT AJA