Show simple item record

dc.date.accessioned 2017-04-08T17:22:21Z
dc.date.available 2017-04-08T17:22:21Z
dc.date.created 2015-05-27 en
dc.identifier.citation [2016] ZACC 13
dc.identifier.citation 2016 (6) BCLR 709 (CC)
dc.identifier.citation 2016 (4) SA 121 (CC)
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/3801
dc.title Makate v Vodacom (Pty) Limited en
dc.title.alternative CCT52/15 en
dc.identifier.casenumber CCT52/15 en
dc.date.hearing 1 September 2015
dc.contributor.judge Jafta J (majority): [1] to [107]
dc.contributor.judge Wallis AJ (concurring): [108] to [200]
dc.date.judgment 26 April 2016
dc.link.judgment http://collections.concourt.org.za/bitstream/handle/20.500.12144/3801/Full%20judgment%20Official%20version%20%28579%20Kb%29-24368.pdf?sequence=10&isAllowed=y
dc.concourt.synopsis Contract — breach — oral agreement to negotiate in good faith Pleadings — Ostensible authority — Distinct from estoppel — Not necessary to plead ostensible authority in replication Prescription Act 68 of 1969 — Sections 10(1), 11(d), 129(d) — interpretation of “debt” Constitution — Section 39(2) — Narrow interpretation of “debt” — claim not prescribed


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search ConCourt Collections


Browse

My Account