Van den Heever v Kahn 1961 (3) SA 17 (T)

Van den Heever v Kahn 1961 (3) SA 17 (T)

Issue: Whether a person who has been induced to enter into a contract by misrepresentation is entitled to rescind the contract, even if the misrepresentation was innocent.

Facts:

Kahn sold a farm to Van den Heever. Kahn told Van den Heever that the farm was 100 hectares in size, but the farm was actually only 75 hectares in size. Van den Heever relied on Kahn's representation about the size of the farm when he entered into the contract of sale.

After Van den Heever discovered that the farm was only 75 hectares in size, he demanded that Kahn rescind the contract. Kahn refused to rescind the contract. Van den Heever then sued Kahn for rescission of the contract.

Held:

The Transvaal Provincial Division (TPD) held that Van den Heever was entitled to rescind the contract. The Court reasoned that a person who has been induced to enter into a contract by misrepresentation is entitled to rescind the contract, even if the misrepresentation was innocent.

Key Facts:

• A seller told a buyer that a farm was 100 hectares in size, but the farm was actually only 75 hectares in size.
• The buyer relied on the seller's representation about the size of the farm when he entered into the contract of sale.
• After the buyer discovered that the farm was only 75 hectares in size, he demanded that the seller rescind the contract.
• The seller refused to rescind the contract.
• The buyer sued the seller for rescission of the contract.

Reasons:

The Court reasoned that a person who has been induced to enter into a contract by misrepresentation is entitled to rescind the contract, even if the misrepresentation was innocent. The Court held that this is because the consent of the person who has been misled is not genuine.

The Court also held that the person who has been misled does not have to prove that the other party to the contract intended to deceive them. The Court held that it is sufficient to show that the other party made a misrepresentation, even if the misrepresentation was innocent.

Conclusion:

The TPD's decision in Van den Heever v Kahn 1961 (3) SA 17 (T) is a significant case because it clarifies the law relating to the right of a person who has been induced to enter into a contract by misrepresentation to rescind the contract. The decision also emphasizes the importance of honesty and accuracy in contractual negotiations.