Griesel v Haasbroek

Dr David Griesel, a game farmer, sold a bull buffalo to Mr Piet Haasbroek for R1 million plus VAT. The sale was concluded at Dr Griesel’s farm when the buffalo was offloaded. An express term of the sale was that Mr Haasbroek would assume the risk of death or injury to the buffalo arising from a high‑risk veterinary operation (darting and sedation) necessary to draw blood for disease testing to obtain a transport permit. During the operation on 27 October 2009, the buffalo was successfully darted but was not immediately followed. It later died due to suffocation caused by regurgitation while sedated. Dr Griesel sued Mr Haasbroek for the purchase price. The trial court and full court dismissed the claim, but Dr Griesel appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld with costs. The orders of the full court and trial court were set aside. Judgment was granted in favour of Dr David Griesel against Mr Piet Haasbroek for payment of R1 146 302.53 with interest at 15.5% per annum from 27 October 2009 to date of payment, together with costs.

The case affirms that parties to a contract of sale may expressly vary the common‑law rules on risk and delivery. Where a purchaser expressly assumes a defined risk, and that risk materialises, the purchaser bears the loss and remains liable for the purchase price even if delivery becomes impossible. The judgment clarifies that doctrines such as supervening impossibility, vis maior, and casus fortuitus do not apply where risk allocation is governed by an express contractual term.