Act Computers v NVM Beleggings & Versekerings Adviseurs

ACT Computers, a supplier of computer equipment and internet services, installed a WiFi radio antenna and related equipment at the premises of NVM Beleggings & Versekerings Adviseurs, an investment and insurance brokerage. The arrangement was based on a written letter and two quotations, accepted orally by NVM. The documents stated that the equipment was highly specialised, not for sale, and would remain ACT’s property. NVM paid an amount of R3 687.90 corresponding to the installation and equipment-related charges, as well as a monthly fee for internet connectivity. Due to persistent complaints by NVM about poor performance and lack of connectivity, ACT eventually removed the antenna from NVM’s premises. NVM then sued for repayment of the R3 687.90, alleging it had purchased the antenna. The magistrates’ court granted absolution from the instance. On appeal, the Free State High Court held that there was dissensus due to a material mistake (error in negotio), rendering the contract void and entitling NVM to restitution. ACT appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld with costs. The order of the Free State High Court was set aside and replaced with an order dismissing NVM’s appeal with costs, thereby restoring the magistrates’ court outcome in favour of ACT.

The case clarifies South African contract law principles relating to consensus, the interpretation of written contractual documents, and the distinction between contracts of sale and contracts for services. It confirms that routine reservation-of-ownership clauses do not, on their own, establish a contract of sale, and that courts should not lightly infer dissensus where written terms clearly define the agreement.