Examining the case of Klopper N.O and
Others v Marais and Another
Introduction:
Contracts for the sale of a property often
contain a clause stating that on default of the purchaser, the property may be
resold and, if an equivalent or higher price cannot be achieved, the purchaser
will be liable for the difference – such a provision is valid.
In this case, the central question revolves
around whether a seller can claim damages if they manage to sell the property
at a lower price after a purchaser's breach of contract.
Facts of the case
The G & M Trust sold immovable property to
a Ms Marais, and later a Mr Delport concluded an undertaking with the Trust
that he would stand in for the payments that Ms Marais was responsible for. The
sale agreement was later cancelled because neither Ms Marais nor Mr Delport
honoured the payment obligations. The parties concluded a second sale agreement
in respect of the same property for a purchase price of R750,000, but Marais
and Delport again failed to comply.
The Trust appointed an estate agent to market
the property for them and eventually obtained an offer from a third party in an
amount of R500,000, which was accepted by the Trust.
The Trust argued that it had suffered damages
in the amount of R250,000 being the amount between the price that they would
have obtained had Marais performed in terms of the second sale agreement, and
also in the amount of the estate agent commission which it was obliged to pay.
The judgment
The court stated the law regarding the second
sale for a lower price and damages suffered:
·
When a sale
agreement is cancelled due to a purchaser's default, the seller may resell the
property and claim damages from the purchaser for any difference in price.
·
The innocent
party cannot merely sit back and allow their losses to accumulate; they must
take reasonable positive steps to prevent the occurrence or accumulation of
losses.
·
Reasonable
expenses incurred in carrying out the mitigation steps may be claimed as
additional damage suffered.
The second sale agreement had
established a purchase price of R750,000. However, the Trust could not achieve
this price during the third sale, even with the assistance of an estate agent.
Consequently, it was evident that the Trust had incurred damages amounting to
R250,000, representing the difference between the expected sale price and the
eventual sale price.
Furthermore, the Trust was
justified in claiming the agent's commission as part of the damages. This was
because they incurred expenses in engaging the agent to secure a buyer after
the second breach and as a necessary measure to mitigate their losses.