- Flynote
-
Interpretation of contract – between cell phone service provider and dealer
of cell phone products – repudiation – dealer alleged to possess goods not supplied
by service provider – not proved – indemnity clause – dealer not precluded from
recovering damages resulting from repudiation of agreement by service provider –
whether dealer precluded by non-variation clause from including new store under the
agreement – permissible as agreement contains procedure for an amendment due to
changed circumstances – followed by service provider – appeal dismissed.
Loading PDF...
This document is 279.6 KB. Do you want to load it?
Cited documents 8
Judgment 8
- Belet Industries CC t/a Belet Cellular v MTN Service Provider (Pty) Ltd (936/2013) [2014] ZASCA 181 (24 November 2014)
- Bothma-Batho Transport (Edms) Bpk v S Bothma & Seun Transport (Edms) Bpk (802/2012) [2013] ZASCA 176 (28 November 2013)
- KPMG Chartered Accountants (SA) v Securefin Limited and Another (644/2007) [2009] ZASCA 7 (13 March 2009)
- Natal Joint Municipal Pension Fund v Endumeni Municipality (920/2010) [2012] ZASCA 13 (16 March 2012)
- Novartis v Maphil (20229/2014) [2015] ZASCA 111 (3 September 2015)
- Spring Forest Trading 599 CC v Wilberry (Pty) Ltd t/a Ecowash and Another (725/2013) [2014] ZASCA 178 (21 November 2014)
- Telcordia Technologies Inc v Telkom SA Ltd (26/2005) [2006] ZASCA 112 (22 November 2006)
- Van Aardt v Galway (923/2010) [2011] ZASCA 201 (24 November 2011)