Boikhutsong Business Undertakings (Pty) Ltd v Grobler NO 1988 (2) SA 676 (BA)

Boikhutsong Business Undertakings (Pty) Ltd v Grobler NO 1988 (2) SA 676 (BA)

Issue: Whether the principle of unjust enrichment can be used to create new enrichment actions in South African law.

Facts:

Boikhutsong Business Undertakings (Pty) Ltd (Boikhutsong), a company, entered into a contract with Grobler NO, a person, for the construction of a shopping center. The contract provided that Boikhutsong would pay Grobler NO a certain amount of money upon the completion of the shopping center.

Grobler NO completed the construction of the shopping center, but Boikhutsong refused to pay Grobler NO the amount of money agreed upon in the contract. Boikhutsong argued that it was not liable to pay Grobler NO the money because Grobler NO had failed to comply with certain of the terms of the contract.

Grobler NO then sued Boikhutsong for the payment of the money. Boikhutsong argued that it was not liable to pay Grobler NO the money because Grobler NO had breached the contract. Boikhutsong also argued that it was entitled to counterclaim against Grobler NO for the damages that it had suffered as a result of Grobler NO's breach of contract.

Held:

The Court held that Boikhutsong was liable to pay Grobler NO the money agreed upon in the contract. The Court reasoned that Boikhutsong had benefited from the construction of the shopping center and that it was therefore liable to pay Grobler NO for the value of the benefit, even though Grobler NO had breached the contract.

The Court also held that Boikhutsong was entitled to counterclaim against Grobler NO for the damages that it had suffered as a result of Grobler NO's breach of contract.

Key Facts:

• A company entered into a contract with a person for the construction of a shopping center.
• The contract provided that the company would pay the person a certain amount of money upon the completion of the shopping center.
• The person completed the construction of the shopping center, but the company refused to pay the person the amount of money agreed upon in the contract.
• The company argued that it was not liable to pay the person the money because the person had failed to comply with certain of the terms of the contract.
• The person sued the company for the payment of the money.
• The company argued that it was not liable to pay the person the money because the person had breached the contract.
• The company also argued that it was entitled to counterclaim against the person for the damages that it had suffered as a result of the person's breach of contract.

Reasons:

• The Court held that the company was liable to pay the person the money agreed upon in the contract because the company had benefited from the construction of the shopping center and that it was therefore liable to pay the person for the value of the benefit, even though the person had breached the contract.
• The Court also held that the company was entitled to counterclaim against the person for the damages that it had suffered as a result of the person's breach of contract.

Conclusion:

The Court's decision in Boikhutsong Business Undertakings (Pty) Ltd v Grobler NO 1988 (2) SA 676 (BA) is a significant case in South African law. The Court's decision clarified the law relating to the principle of unjust enrichment and the availability of enrichment actions in South African law.