Scholtz v Faifer 1910 TS 243
The appellant, Scholtz, was a builder who was contracted to erect a building on a plot of land owned by the respondent, Faifer. The contract contained a clause that stated that Scholtz would take possession of the plot of land for the purpose of carrying out the works.
After the contract was signed, Scholtz took possession of the plot of land and began work on the building. However, Faifer refused to pay Scholtz the instalments due under the contract. Scholtz sued Faifer for breach of contract.
Procedural History
The trial court held that Faifer was liable for breach of contract. Faifer appealed the decision to the Transvaal Supreme Court.
Issue
The issue in this case was whether Faifer was liable for breach of contract.
Holding
The Transvaal Supreme Court held that Faifer was liable for breach of contract. The court reasoned that the clause in the contract that stated that Scholtz would take possession of the plot of land for the purpose of carrying out the works gave Scholtz possession of the land.
Reasoning
The court reasoned that the clause in the contract that stated that Scholtz would take possession of the plot of land for the purpose of carrying out the works gave Scholtz possession of the land. The court also reasoned that Faifer's refusal to pay Scholtz the instalments due under the contract was a breach of contract.
Conclusion
The Transvaal Supreme Court's decision in this case is significant because it clarifies the law relating to the possession of land under a building contract. The decision emphasizes that a clause in a contract that states that a builder will take possession of land for the purpose of carrying out the works gives the builder possession of the land.
The decision also provides guidance to parties who are involved in building contracts. Parties who are involved in building contracts should be aware of the law relating to the possession of land.
No comments:
Post a Comment