Synopsis:
Delict — wrongfulness — pure economic loss — intentional
interference with contractual relations — relevance of intention
in wrongfulness enquiry — norm of state accountability —
vulnerability to risk — existing contractual relations.
Application for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal concerning a delictual claim for damages arising from pure economic loss. The applicant granted a loan to a company that had a completion contract with the respondent Department. The Department cancelled the contract before payment of the contract value. The company then went into liquidation, rendering it unable to repay its debt to the applicant. The Court concluded that the Department’s cancellation of the contract was not wrongful and confirmed that the test for wrongfulness is different in cases of pure economic loss. The Court also concluded that the Department’s cancellation did not fall into the recognised category of intentional interference with contractual relations. It held that policy considerations militated against the claim because the applicant had alternative means of recovering its loss and the substantial risk of loss it faced was highly foreseeable and inextricably linked to the promise of a large financial award. The appeal was dismissed.
Judgment: Khampepe J (unanimous).