A V Theron & Swanepoel Incorporated and Another v Knott

The respondent, Mr Neil Sean Knott, instructed the appellants, a firm of attorneys and one of its directors, to advise him on and attend to the sale of his immovable property and certain movables. The appellants negligently advised him that he required the consent of all owners in the sectional title scheme to regularise an encroachment, whereas only 70% consent was required. Relying on this advice, Mr Knott concluded a sale with Blue Dot (Pty) Ltd subject to a suspensive condition requiring unanimous consent, which could not be fulfilled and the sale lapsed. He later sold the property to Trymore (Pty) Ltd under a different agreement for a lump sum of R1 050 000, which included the immovable property and some movables, but not all those contemplated in the Blue Dot sale. Mr Knott sued the appellants for contractual damages, alleging that he lost a bargain of R250 000 as a result of the negligent advice.

The appeal was upheld with costs. The orders of the trial court and the High Court were set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the plaintiff’s claim with costs.

The case clarifies the evidentiary burden on plaintiffs claiming loss of bargain damages in South African contract law, particularly where successive contracts differ in content. It underscores that proof of negligence alone is insufficient; causation and actual patrimonial loss must be established. The judgment reinforces the need for comparability of transactions and proper evidence of market value when claiming damages.