Van der Westhuizen v Arnold

The respondent, an elderly man, purchased a used Mercedes-Benz motor vehicle in 1995 for R15 000. The appellant, a conveyancing attorney, was reflected as the seller although the vehicle had been sourced through an intermediary, Swart. At the appellant’s offices, the respondent signed a written ‘koopbrief’ stating that he bought the vehicle voetstoots and that ‘geen waarborge hoegenaamd’ (no warranties whatsoever) were given. After paying for repairs and registering the vehicle in his name, the respondent was confronted by the sheriff executing a writ on behalf of a bank claiming ownership of the vehicle. To avoid eviction, the respondent paid the bank R14 474,69 and then sued the appellant in the magistrate’s court for damages based on breach of the implied warranty against eviction.

The appeal was upheld with costs. The judgment of the court a quo in favour of the respondent was set aside, and the respondent’s claim failed.

The case affirms the enforceability of broadly worded exclusion clauses in contracts of sale and confirms that the implied warranty against eviction may be expressly excluded. It reinforces the primacy of contractual language in interpretation and limits the role of good faith and public policy in overriding clear contractual provisions, consistent with Brisley v Drotsky.