Kohlberg v Burnett 1986 (3) SA 12 (A)

Kohlberg v Burnett 1986 (3) SA 12 (A)

Issue: Whether a party can rely on a representation made by another party, even if the representation is not in writing.

Facts:

Kohlberg and Burnett were two businessmen. They were negotiating a contract for the sale of a business. During the negotiations, Burnett made certain representations to Kohlberg about the business.

Kohlberg relied on Burnett's representations and entered into the contract. However, after Kohlberg had taken over the business, he discovered that Burnett's representations were false.

Kohlberg sued Burnett for breach of contract. Burnett argued that he was not liable to Kohlberg because his representations were not in writing.

Key Facts:

• Kohlberg and Burnett were two businessmen.
• They were negotiating a contract for the sale of a business.
• During the negotiations, Burnett made certain representations to Kohlberg about the business.
• Kohlberg relied on Burnett's representations and entered into the contract.
• However, after Kohlberg had taken over the business, he discovered that Burnett's representations were false.
• Kohlberg sued Burnett for breach of contract.
• Burnett argued that he was not liable to Kohlberg because his representations were not in writing.

Court's Decision

The Appellate Division (AD) held that Burnett was liable to Kohlberg for breach of contract. The AD reasoned that Burnett's representations were actionable, even though they were not in writing.

The AD also held that it was against public policy to allow a party to make false representations to another party and then escape liability by claiming that the representations were not in writing.

Application of the Law to the Facts of the Case

The AD applied the law to the facts of the case and found that Burnett was liable to Kohlberg for breach of contract. The AD ordered Burnett to pay Kohlberg damages for the losses that Kohlberg had suffered as a result of relying on Burnett's false representations.

Conclusion

The AD's decision in Kohlberg v Burnett 1986 (3) SA 12 (A) is a significant case because it clarifies the law relating to the enforceability of oral representations. The decision emphasizes that a party can rely on a representation made by another party, even if the representation is not in writing.

The decision also provides guidance to parties to contracts and to lawyers on the law relating to the enforceability of oral representations. Parties to contracts should be aware that they can rely on oral representations made by other parties, even if the representations are not in writing. Lawyers should be aware that their clients may be liable for breach of contract if they make false representations to other parties, even if the representations are not in writing.