Beijers v Harlequin Duck Properties 231 (Pty) Ltd t/a Office Space Online

The appellant, Ms Danielle Beijers, was employed by the respondent estate agency under a written commission-only contract as a commercial property broker. The contract provided that she would earn 50% of the commission on ‘completed deals’ effected by herself and contained a non-variation clause and entire agreement clause. Two property transactions (Woodmead and Chislehurston) were completed, in which Beijers was involved and was at least one of the effective causes. She was not paid her full commission and sued for the outstanding amount. The respondent alleged that a subsequent oral agreement reduced her commission to 25% per deal based on commission-splitting practice, and that she had been overpaid. The regional court upheld Beijers’ claim and excluded evidence of the alleged oral agreement. On appeal, the High Court full bench set aside the decision and remitted the matter for further evidence. The matter then came before the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal was upheld with costs. The order of the High Court full bench was set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the appeal from the regional court with costs, thereby restoring the regional court’s judgment in favour of the appellant.

The case reaffirms the strict application of non-variation and entire agreement clauses in South African contract law and clarifies that evidence of alleged oral agreements or business practices cannot be introduced to contradict clear and unambiguous written terms. It also confirms that being an effective cause, not the sole effective cause, suffices for an estate agent’s entitlement to commission where the contract so provides.