Endumeni and the Parol Evidence Rule: Do They Coexist?

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2023/v26i0a13383

Keywords:

Parol evidence rule, nature and effeect, evidence inadmissible under rule, not admissible to interpret contract, rule and modern approach to interpretation not incompatible

Abstract

A recent judgment of the SCA in Capitec Bank Holdings v Coral Lagoon Investments suggested that the parol evidence rule is likely to become a residual rule of little practical importance in view of the expansive approach to interpretation flowing from the judgment in Endumeni and applied by the Constitutional Court in University of Johannesburg v Auckland Park Theological Seminary. The article analyses the court's concern in the light of the two judgments and suggests that it is misplaced. The parol evidence rule is still of full force and effect and evidence inadmissible under the rule is not admissible as context in interpreting contracts.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Bibliography

Literature

Lubbe GF (original text by Nienaber PM) "Cession" in Joubert WA, Faris JA and Harms LTC (ed) The Law of South Africa Vol 3 3rd ed (LexisNexis Durban 2013) 89-151

Posner E "Parol Evidence Rule, the Plain Meaning Rule, and the Principles of Contractual Interpretation" 1997 U Pa L Rev 533-578 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3312625

Roberts AA Wessels' Law of Contract in South Africa 2nd ed (Hortors Johannesburg 1937)

Schmidt CWH and Rademeyer H Law of Evidence (LexisNexis Durban 2003-) May 2022 – SI 20

Schwikkard PJ and Van der Merwe SE Principles of Evidence 3rd ed (Juta Cape Town 2010)

United Kingdom Law Commission Working Paper No 70. Law of Contract: The Parol Evidence Rule (Her Majesty's Stationary Office London 1976)

Van der Merwe DP (original text by Schmidt CWH and Zeffert DT) "Evidence" in Joubert WA, Faris JA and Harms LTC (ed) The Law of South Africa Vol 18 3rd ed (LexisNexis Durban 2015) 91-256

Van Rensburg ADJ, Lotz JG and Van Rhijn TAR "Contract" (revised by Christie RH, updated by Sharrock RD) in Joubert WA, Faris JA and Harms LTC (ed) The Law of South Africa Vol 9 3rd ed (LexisNexis Durban 2014) 171-349

Wallis M "Interpretation Before and After Natal Joint Municipal Pension Fund v Endumeni Municipality 2012 4 SA 593 (SCA)" 2019 PELJ 1-29 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2019/v22i0a7416

Wigmore JH "A View of the Parol-Evidence Rule – Part I" 1899 ALR 337-354 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3306662

Wigmore JH "A Brief History of the Parol Evidence Rule" 1904 Colum L Rev 338-355 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1109458

Case law

South Africa

ABSA Technology Finance Solutions (Pty) Ltd v Michael's Bid A House 2013 3 SA 426 (SCA)

Affirmative Portfolios CC v Transnet Ltd t/a Metrorail 2009 1 SA 196 (SCA)

Alfred McAlpine & Son (Pty) Ltd v Transvaal Provincial Administration 1974 3 SA 506 (A)

Auckland Park Theological Seminary v University of Johannesburg (A5017/17) [2018] ZAGPJHC 490 (4 July 2018)

Auckland Park Theological Seminary v University of Johannesburg (1160/2018) [2020] ZASCA 24 (25 March 2020)

Boshoff v Theron 1940 TPD 299

Breed v Van den Berg 1932 AD 283

Capital Building Society v De Jager; De Jager v Capital Building Society 1963 3 SA 381 (T)

Capitec Bank Holdings Ltd v Coral Lagoon Investments 194 (Pty) Ltd 2022 1 SA 100 (SCA)

Centre for Child Law v Director-General, Department of Home Affairs 2022 2 SA 131 (CC)

Chisuse v Director-General, Department of Home Affairs 2020 6 SA 14 (CC)

Comwezi Security Services (Pty) Ltd v Cape Empowerment Trust Ltd (759/2011) [2012] ZASCA 126 (21 September 2012)

Delmas Milling Co Ltd v Du Plessis 1955 3 SA 447 (A)

Densam (Pty) Ltd v Cywilnat (Pty) Ltd 1991 1 SA 100 (A)

Department of Land Affairs v Goedgelegen Tropical Fruits (Pty) Ltd 2007 6 SA 199 (CC)

Dettmann v Goldfain 1975 3 SA 385 (A) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-3117-9_1

Du Plessis v Nel 1952 1 SA 513 (A)

Eastern Rand Exploration Co Ltd v Nel 1903 TS 42

Friedlander v De Aar Municipality 1944 AD 79

Harlin Properties (Pty) Ltd v Los Angeles Hotel (Pty Ltd 1962 3 SA 143 (A)

Henderson v Hanekom (1903) 20 SC 513

Hersch v Nel 1948 3 SA 686 (A) DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1523880

Hodd v Hodd; D'Aubrey v D'Aubrey 1942 NPD 198

Investigating Directorate: Serious Economic Offences v Hyundai Motor Distributors (Pty) Ltd: In re Hyundai Motor Distributors (Pty) Ltd v Smit 2001 1 SA 545 (CC)

Johnston v Leal 1980 3 SA 927 (A) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15298668091425888

KPMG Chartered Accountants (SA) v Securefin Ltd 2009 4 SA 399 (SCA)

Le Marchand v Creeke 1953 1 SA 186 (N)

MTK Saagmeule (Pty) Ltd v Killyman Estates (Pty) Ltd 1980 3 SA 1 (A)

Natal Joint Municipal Pension Fund v Endumeni Municipality 2012 4 SA 593 (SCA)

National Board (Pretoria) (Pty) Ltd v Estate Swanepoel 1975 3 SA 16 (A)

National Coalition for Gay and Lesbian Equality v Minister of Home Affairs 2000 2 SA 1 (CC) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/15718160020958926

Padayachee v Adhu Investments CC 2016 2 All SA 555 (GJ)

Philmatt (Pty) Ltd v Mosselbank Developments CC 1996 2 SA 15 (A)

Privest Employee Solutions (Pty) Ltd v Vital Distribution Solutions (Pty) Ltd 2005 5 SA 276 (SCA)

Propell Specialised Financial Services (Pty) Ltd v Attorneys Insurance Indemnity Fund NPC 2019 2 SA 221 (SCA)

S v Bhulwana; S v Gwadiso 1996 1 SA 388 (CC)

Schierhout v Union Government 1926 AD 286

Shacklock v Shacklock 1949 1 SA 91 (A)

Shill v Milner 1937 AD 101

Telcordia Technologies Inc v Telkom SA Ltd 2007 3 SA 266 (SCA)

The City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v Blair Atholl Homeowners Association 2019 3 SA 398 (SCA)

Union Government v Vianini Ferro-Concrete Pipes (Pty) Ltd 1941 AD 43

University of Cape Town v Cape Bar Council 1986 4 SA 903 (A)

University of Johannesburg v Auckland Park Theological Seminary (Pty) Ltd (39717/2012) [2017] ZAGPJHC 382 (10 March 2017)

University of Johannesburg v Auckland Park Theological Seminary 2021 6 SA 1 (CC)

Van Aardt v Galway 2012 2 SA 312 (SCA)

Venter v Bircholtz 1972 1 SA 276 (A)

Von Ziegler v Superior Furniture Manufacturers (Pty) Ltd 1962 3 SA 399 (W)

Williams v Carrick 1938 TPD 147

Willoughby's Consolidated Company Ltd v Copthall Stores Ltd 1913 AD 267

United Kingdom

R (on the Application of Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health [2003] 2 All ER 113 (HL)

Legislation

Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Act 53 of 2003

Universities Act 61 of 1955

Internet sources

Moosajee A 2021 New Judgment Highlights Importance of Text, Context and Purpose in Interpreting Contracts in South Africa https://iclg.com/briefing/16757-new-judgment-highlights-importance-of-text-context-and-purpose-in-interpreting-contracts-south-africa#:~:text=The%20parol%20evidence%20rule%20provides,such%20as%20fraud%20or%20duress accessed 27 February 2022

Oosthuizen J and Hutchison D 2021 Thorts: Interpreting Contracts – What has Happened to the Parol Evidence Rule? https://www.inceconnect.co.za/article/thorts-interpreting-contracts-what-has-happened-to-the-parol-evidence-rule--2021-11-19 accessed 27 February 2022

Published

02-10-2023

How to Cite

Wallis, M. (2023). Endumeni and the Parol Evidence Rule: Do They Coexist?. Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, 26, (Published on 2 October 2023) pp 1 – 27. https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2023/v26i0a13383

Issue

Section

Articles

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.