Repackaging the General Prejudice Principle in Suretyship Agreements as a Breach of Contract under South African Law
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2023/v26i0a15696Keywords:
suretyship, general prejudice principle, breach of contract, bock v dubororo investments, prejudice principle, prejudice, Bock v Dubororo Investments, Bock, creditor, principal debtor, material variation, contract law, tacit termAbstract
Historically, if a creditor through his conduct prejudiced or injured a surety in the latter's rights or interest, the surety was entitled to claim release from his obligations under the general prejudice principle. However, the principle was summarily rejected by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bock v Dubororo Investments (Pty) Ltd 2004 2 SA 242 (SCA), and it may now be determined whether there exists another interpretation in order to ensure its survival. This article considers the historical application of the general prejudice principle in suretyship agreements under South African law since the principle’s original incorporation from the English law up until its outright rejection by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bock. It then aims to reinterpret the principle in the light of ordinary contract law principles as being nothing more than a breach of contract by the creditor.
Downloads
References
Bibliography
Literature
Forsyth C and Pretorius J Caney's The Law of Suretyship in South Africa 6th ed (Juta Cape Town 2010)
Hay D, McKinley L and Wright A (eds) Halsbury's Laws of England 49 5th ed (LexisNexis Butterworths Durban 2015)
Magolego S "To Discharge or Not to Discharge a Surety? The General Prejudice Rule" 2005 Codicillus 57-64
Pretorius J "Prejudice and the Surety" 2005 SA Merc LJ 381-387
Pretorius J "Release of Surety as a Result of Prejudice" 2005 JBL 46-50
Roberts AA (ed) The Law of Contract in South Africa II 2nd ed (Butterworths Durban 1951)
Simonds L (gen ed) Halsbury Laws of England 18 3rd ed (LexisNexis Butterworths London 1957)
Van der Merwe SWJ et al Contract – General Principles 4th ed (Juta Cape Town 2012)
Whittaker S "Suretyship" in Beale HG (gen ed) Chitty on Contracts II 32nd ed (Sweet and Maxwell London 2015)
Case law
ABSA Bank Ltd v Davidson 2000 1 SA 1117 (SCA)
Administrator General South West Africa v Trust Bank of Africa Ltd 1982 1 SA 635 (SWA)
Antalis South Africa (Pty) Ltd v C (unreported) case number 73947/2010 of 20 March 2014
Arijs v Firstrand Bank Ltd (39338/2014) [2018] ZAGPJHC 402 (29 May 2018)
Aviva Insurance Limited v Hackney Empire Limited [2012] EWCA Civ 1716
Bank of India v Trans Continental Commodity Merchants and Patel [1983] 2 Lloyd's Rep 298 (CA)
Bank of India v Trans Continental Commodity Merchants Ltd and Patel [1982] 1 Lloyd's Rep 506
Bank of Lisbon and South Africa Ltd v De Ornelas 1988 3 SA 580 (A)
Bock v Dubororo Investments (Pty) Ltd 2004 2 SA 242 (SCA)
Brisley v Drotsky 2002 4 SA 1 (SCA)
Colonial Government v Edenborough (1885-1886) 4 SC 290
Di Giulio v First National Bank of South Africa Ltd 2002 6 SA 281 (C)
Dominick v Nedbank Limited (20463/14) [2015] ZASCA 160 (13 November 2015)
Estate Liebenberg v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd 1927 AD 502
Fedbond Nominees (Pty) Ltd v Meier 2008 1 SA 458 (C)
Firstrand Bank Ltd v Barreiro (91920/19) [2020] ZAGPPHC 287 (25 June 2020)
Firstrand Bank Ltd v Hazan, Firstrand Bank Ltd v Hazan Wholesalers and Distributors CC 2016 2 All SA 112 (GJ)
Fry v First National Bank of South Africa Ltd 1996 4 SA 924 (C)
Holme v Brunskill 1878 3 QBD 495
Investec Bank Ltd v Lewis 2002 2 SA 111 (C)
Jans v Nedcor Bank Ltd 2003 5 SA 646 (SCA)
Lodhi 5 Properties Investments CC v Firstrand Bank Ltd 2015 3 All SA 32 (SCA)
Minister of Community Development v SA Mutual Fire and General Insurance Co Ltd 1978 1 SA 1020 (W)
National Westminster Bank plc v Riley [1986] BCLC 268
New Port Finance Company (Pty) Ltd v Nedbank Ltd 2016 5 SA 503 (SCA)
Spur Steak Ranches v Mentz 2000 3 SA 755 (C)
St Patrick's Mansions (Pty) Ltd v Grange Restaurant (Pty) Ltd 1949 4 SA 57 (W)
Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v Cohen 1993 3 SA 854 (SE)
The Wardens and Commonalty of the Mystery of Mercers of the City of London v New Hampshire Insurance Company 1992 WL 895900
Watts v Shuttleworth 1861 158 ER 510
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 John-Martin Goetsch
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
.png){kind=spacer}