Jan George Gabriel Stoltz v Prof L J S Steenkamp

The appellant, Mr Jan George Gabriel Stoltz, sold a 1995 model Case harvester to the respondent, Prof L J S Steenkamp, during 2006 pursuant to an oral agreement concluded between December 2005 and July 2006. The harvester was delivered in August 2006. The purchase price was in dispute. Mr Stoltz claimed the purchase price was R750 000, and sued for R408 865.45, being the difference between that amount and the R341 134.55 that Prof Steenkamp paid to settle the outstanding debt with Absa Bank. Prof Steenkamp contended that the agreement was that he would buy the harvester for the amount still owed to Absa only. The parties were close friends for almost 40 years. Mr Stoltz had purchased the harvester in 2001 for R525 000. A handwritten document dated 10 December 2005, authored by Prof Steenkamp, recorded a deposit of R35 000 and that the remaining Absa debt of approximately R333 000 would be arranged through Absa financing. A valuation dated 26 October 2010 valued the harvester at between R320 000 and R400 000 as at May 2006. Both parties were found to be poor, evasive, contradictory and mendacious witnesses who had previously connived to provide false information to financial institutions.

• What was the purchase price agreed upon in the oral contract for the sale of the harvester?
• How should a court resolve irreconcilable, mutually destructive factual versions when both parties are unreliable witnesses?
• Did the appellant prove on a balance of probabilities that the purchase price was R750 000?
• What is the appropriate approach to determining the purchase price in a contract dispute involving mutually destructive versions and unreliable testimony?

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Where parties present mutually destructive versions in a contract dispute and neither party is a credible witness, the court must determine the matter on the balance of probabilities rather than on witness credibility. In such circumstances, the plaintiff bears the onus of proving the essential elements of his claim, including the purchase price in a sale agreement. Objective evidence such as market valuations, prior purchase prices, depreciation, and the conduct of parties in seeking financing are relevant considerations in assessing probabilities. An appellate court has very limited powers to interfere with the factual findings of a trial court, and absent palpable misdirections, the trial court's factual findings are presumed to be correct.

The court noted that the parties had conceded they had agreed to make false representations to the bank regarding the deposit and had previously in other instances connived to convey untruths to financial institutions to obtain credit. This went to their general credibility as witnesses. The court also observed that the difference in expert opinions regarding whether disputed portions of the handwritten document had been added later was not germane to the main issue, as the matter could be decided on the undisputed portion of the document and other evidence. The court commended the trial judge for adopting a sensible approach when faced with the Full Court's omission to set aside the trial court's order or issue directions regarding how the further evidence was to be dealt with.

This case is significant in South African contract law for reiterating the established approach to resolving disputes involving mutually destructive versions where neither party is a credible witness. It emphasizes that in such circumstances, the court must determine the matter on the probabilities rather than on the credibility of witnesses. The case also reinforces the principle that the burden of proof rests on the plaintiff to prove the essential elements of his claim, including in this case the purchase price. It further demonstrates the limited scope for appellate intervention in factual findings made by a trial court and the presumption of correctness of such findings absent palpable misdirections. The case serves as a practical illustration of how courts assess probabilities in contract disputes, particularly regarding market value evidence and the conduct of parties in seeking financing.