Stoltz v Steenkamp

The appellant, Mr Jan George Gabriel Stoltz, sold a 1995 Case harvester to the respondent, Prof L J S Steenkamp, in terms of an oral agreement concluded during 2005–2006. The parties, who were long‑standing friends, agreed that Prof Steenkamp would settle the outstanding debt on the harvester owed by Stoltz to Absa Bank, which amounted to R341 134.55. Prof Steenkamp paid this amount and took delivery of the harvester in August 2006. A dispute arose regarding the purchase price: Stoltz alleged it was R750 000, payable partly by settling the Absa debt and the balance in instalments, while Steenkamp contended that the Absa settlement constituted the full purchase price. Stoltz sued for the alleged balance. After initially succeeding in the trial court, the matter was remitted for further evidence following the discovery of a handwritten document suggesting the Absa settlement constituted the full price. On reconsideration, the trial court dismissed Stoltz’s claim, finding that he failed to prove the alleged purchase price.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The case restates and reinforces the South African approach to resolving mutually destructive factual versions, as set out in Stellenbosch Farmers’ Winery v Martell, and underscores the principle that a plaintiff bears the onus of proving contractual terms such as price. It also illustrates the importance of probabilities and objective evidence where witness credibility is compromised.