|
''Aucamp v Morton''〔1949 (3) SA 611 (A).〕 is an important case in South African contract law. It was heard in the Appellate Division by Watermeyer CJ, Centlivres JA, Schreiner JA, Van Den Heever JA and Fagan AJA on 7 and 8 June 1949, with judgment on 21 June. == Facts == In the case of a contract involving reciprocal obligations, a breach by one party of one of his obligations will usually only give the other a right to treat the contract as discharged if the breach is one which evinces an intention on the part of the defaulter no longer to be bound by the terms of the contract for the future, or if the defaulter has broken a promise, the fulfilment of which is essential to the continuation of the contractual tie. In May 1947, Morton purchased a forest and agreed to be bound by a contract between the then-owner Aucamp, whereby the latter had acquired the right, on certain conditions, to fell and remove timber from the forest. In July, Morton directed his agent "G," in charge of felling operations, to discontinue them. After a discussion of the terms of the contract with Aucamp, Morton then cancelled the contract and refused to allow Aucamp access to the forest. Aucamp thereupon instituted an action claiming an order restraining Morton from interfering with his rights under the contract and for damages. In his plea, Morton set up the defence * that Aucamp had broken the contract; and * that he, Morton, had therefore been justified in denying hi access to the forest. In his claim in reconvention, Morton asked * for an order cancelling the contract; and * for damages. A Local Division found in favour of Morton and granted an order cancelling the contract, relying on a breach by Aucamp in that he had failed to remove all sound and merchantable timber, of that felled by him, complying with the measurements mentioned in a clause of the contract. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Aucamp v Morton」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|