About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Supreme Court of Appeal
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Supreme Court of Appeal
>>
1985
>>
[1985] ZASCA 146
|
|
Pritchard Properties (Pty) Ltd. v Koulis (2) (324/84) [1985] ZASCA 146; [1986] 2 All SA 82 (A) (2 December 1985)
Case no 324/84. MC
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (APPELLATE DIVISION
)
In the matter between:
PRITCHARD PROPERTIES (PROPRIETARY) LIMITED
Appellant
and
BASIL KOULIS
Respondent
Coram
: JANSEN, KOTZé, TRENGOVE, BOSHOFF JJA et CILLIé
AJA.
Heard
: 11 November 1985.
Delivered:
2 December 1985.
JUDGMENT
JANSEN JA
:-
I have had the advantage of reading the
judgments /
2. judgments of KOTZé JA, BOSHOFF JA and CILLIé AJA.
I am in respectful agreement with the result arrived
at by KOTZé JA
but for different reasons. They are
the following.
In my respectful view
the rules relating to the role of "surrounding circumstances" in interpreting a
contract afford no real guidance
to the solution of the present problem. It is
therefore in the present case not only unnecessary to attempt to state such
rules but
also undesirable to do so without a full analysis of the relevant
cases and the considerations involved. Here the word-with-deletion
is not a
"surrounding" circumstance but part and parcel of the document, plain to see for
any reader. As every character on the
document /
3. document must be read and integrated with the others, so
also the line through the visible word "latter", together constituting
a
compound character, must be considered in arriving at the meaning of the
document. I am in full agreement with the court a
quo
that "to ignore it
would be to adopt an ostrich-like attitude"
(1984 (4) SA 327(W)
at the bottom of
p 333-334) and also that if it is looked at, the meaning that emerges from the
document as a whole is that found
by the court a
quo
(at p 330 A-F). This
meaning is substantially that propounded by KOTZé JA (without reference,
however, to the deletion of
the word "latter").
I may only add that in my
view the
obiter
view expressed by JAMES JP in
Valdave Investments
(Pty) Ltd v
Total /
4.
Total SA (Pty) Ltd van Another
1977(2) SA
94(D)
should be followed, and that in respect of the two conflicting lines of
cases mentioned by the court a
quo
, the better view is to be found in
that mentioned by the court a
quo
under "(iv)" at the bottom of p 331-332
E.
I would therefore dismiss the appeal with costs.
E.L. JANSEN JA.