•   Hunts End Office Park, Sandton, Johannesburg
  •   +27 11 218 8110
  •   info@disiena.co.za
Search
Login
Di Siena Attorneys - Commercial Litigation | Family Law | Labour Law | Contract Law | Tax Litigation | Criminal Law
  • Home
  • The Firm
    • -About Di Siena Attorneys
    • -About Our Team
    • -Client Testimonials
  • Services
    • -Commercial Litigation
    • -Family Law
    • -Labour Law
    • -Contract Law
    • -Tax Litigation
    • -Criminal Law
  • Differentiators
  • Client Space
    • -Legal News
  • Contact Us

Recent Articles:


  • 11/1/2016
    Judicial Oversight of Emoluments Attachment Orders
  • 7/27/2016
    Termination of Supply and Execution Against Immovable Property For a Prior Owners Debt
  • 7/6/2016
    Warnings Over New Accounting Rules
  • 6/3/2016
    Claims Based on Universal Partnerships in Divorce Matters
  • 5/18/2016
    Automatic Termination Provisions in Employment Contracts
  • 5/11/2016
    Forfeiture of Benefits Upon Divorce and its Constitutionality
  • 3/17/2016
    Statutory Prescribed Rate Of Interest
  • 3/11/2016
    Despite the Voetstoots clause, contracts can be cancelled
  • 3/4/2016
    Are Email Disclaimers of Any Importance?
  • 2/15/2016
    The Duty of Good Faith Towards An Employer And The Duty to Disclose
Subscribe

Despite the Voetstoots clause, contracts can be cancelled

  • by Di Siena Attorneys

Contracting out of liability for patent and latent defects is commonly described as a “voetstoots” clause.

This provides a seller with a defence against a claim that a buyer may bring, based on the discovery of a latent defect. However, it does not provide a defence where the seller acts fraudulently.

Courts have interpreted a “defect” as something substantially impairing the use or effectiveness of the asset purchased. A “latent” defect is one which is not visible or discoverable upon inspection. Where this is uncovered subsequently, a buyer may be entitled to cancel the sale and claim repayment of the purchase price and interest or to claim a reduction of the purchase price, depending on the nature and extent of the defect.

The courts have interpreted ‘fraudulent’ in this context to include instances where the seller was aware of the latent defect and deliberately concealed it from the buyer, despite having a duty to disclose it. The recent case of Ellis v Cilliers, a buyer purchased a property and subsequently discovered that the floors were uneven. The court held that this amounted to a latent defect in that the seller, by laying cement over the wooden floors and covering them with carpets and tiles, had deliberately concealed the unevenness.

As the contract of sale included a voetstoots clause, the presence of fraudulent conduct was necessary for the seller to be held liable by the court. The court found that the seller had acted fraudulently by taking steps to conceal the existence of the defect. Accordingly, the purchaser was entitled to such relief, as could be proven, plus legal costs.

While purchasers enjoy legal protection against latent defects, there is no substitute for due diligence at the time of purchase. Sellers should be aware that they will be held accountable, notwithstanding any voetstoots clause, should they embark on conduct designed to mislead an unsuspecting purchaser. With greater emphasis on consumer protection than previously, this judgment reinforces that the courts are correctly taking a strong approach to this issue.

Designed by Think Aspects : Terms Of Use : Privacy Statement

Quick Contact:

  +27 (0) 11 218 8110
  +27 (0) 86 210 0041
  info@disiena.co.za

Service Index:

  Commercial Litigation
  Family Law
  Labour Law
  Contract Law
  Tax Litigation
  Criminal Law

Social Media:

  

Latest Articles:

  • 11/1/2016
    Judicial Oversight of Emoluments Attachment Orders
  • 7/27/2016
    Termination of Supply and Execution Against Immovable Property For a Prior Owners Debt
Designed by Think Aspects : Terms Of Use : Privacy Statement