Philip Robinson Motors (Pty) Ltd v NM Dada (Pty) Ltd 1975 (2) SA 420 (A)

Philip Robinson Motors (Pty) Ltd v NM Dada (Pty) Ltd 1975 (2) SA 420 (A)

Issues

This case deals with the sale of a used motor vehicle and the question of whether the exclusion clause in the sale agreement was effective in excluding the seller's liability for breach of warranty.

Facts

The appellant, Philip Robinson Motors (Pty) Ltd, sold a used motor vehicle to the respondent, NM Dada (Pty) Ltd. The sale agreement contained an exclusion clause that stated that the seller did not warrant the condition of the vehicle and that the buyer purchased the vehicle "voetstoots" (as is).

After the sale, the respondent discovered that the vehicle was not in good condition and that it had been involved in an accident. The respondent sued the appellant for breach of warranty.

Procedural History

The trial court held that the exclusion clause was effective in excluding the appellant's liability for breach of warranty. The respondent appealed the decision to the Appellate Division.

Issue

The issue in this case was whether the exclusion clause in the sale agreement was effective in excluding the appellant's liability for breach of warranty.

Holding

The Appellate Division held that the exclusion clause in the sale agreement was not effective in excluding the appellant's liability for breach of warranty. The court reasoned that the clause was too wide and that it did not adequately inform the respondent of the risks involved in purchasing the vehicle "voetstoots".

Reasoning

The court reasoned that the exclusion clause was too wide because it excluded all liability for breach of warranty, regardless of the extent of the seller's knowledge of the vehicle's condition. The court also reasoned that the clause did not adequately inform the respondent of the risks involved in purchasing the vehicle "voetstoots" because it was not in a prominent position in the sale agreement and because it was not explained to the respondent.

Conclusion

The Appellate Division's decision in this case is significant because it clarifies the law relating to the exclusion of liability for breach of warranty. The decision emphasizes that exclusion clauses must be narrowly construed and that they must adequately inform the buyer of the risks involved in purchasing goods "voetstoots".

The decision also provides guidance to parties who are involved in the sale of goods. Parties who are involved in the sale of goods should be aware that they may not be able to exclude their liability for breach of warranty by simply including an exclusion clause in the sale agreement.