Brooklyn House Furnishers Ltd v Knoetze & Sons 1970 (3) SA 264 (A)

 Brooklyn House Furnishers Ltd v Knoetze & Sons 1970 (3) SA 264 (A)

Issue: Whether a lien created by carrying and storing goods is an enrichment lien and whether the lienholder is entitled to payment for the expenses incurred before releasing the goods.

Facts: The defendant, Knoetze & Sons, agreed to purchase furniture from the plaintiff, Brooklyn House Furnishers Ltd. However, the defendant was unable to take delivery of the furniture and the plaintiff was forced to store it. The plaintiff then claimed payment for the storage costs from the defendant.

Held: The court held that the plaintiff had a lien over the furniture for the storage costs. The court reasoned that the plaintiff had been enriched by the carrying and storing of the furniture, and that the defendant was therefore liable to pay for the expenses incurred.

Reasons:

• The court found that the lien was an enrichment lien because the plaintiff had been enriched by the carrying and storing of the furniture. The court noted that the plaintiff would not have been able to sell the furniture if it had not been stored, and that the storage costs had therefore preserved the value of the furniture.
• The court also found that the defendant was liable to pay for the storage costs because the plaintiff had not been able to take delivery of the furniture. The court noted that the defendant was in breach of contract by failing to take delivery of the furniture, and that the plaintiff was therefore entitled to recover the expenses incurred as a result of the breach.

Conclusion:

The decision in Brooklyn House Furnishers Ltd v Knoetze & Sons 1970 (3) SA 264 (A) is a significant case in South African law. The court's decision clarified the law of enrichment liens and made it clear that a lienholder is entitled to payment for the expenses incurred before releasing the goods.