WebDIBLEY v FURTER 1951 (4) SA 73 (C) * 1951 (4) SA p73 Citation 1951 (4) SA 73 (C) Court Cape Provincial Division Judge van Zyl J Heard April 12, 1950 ; April 13, 1950 ; April 14, … WebDibley v Furter. Graveyard case: A latent defect must diminish or destroy the usefulness of the thing sold for the purpose for which it is commonly used. The test is objective (i.e its usefulness would diminished or destroyed for everyone and not …
LPL4801 dibley_vs_furter_case_summary - StudyNotesUnisa
Webv) Duty to disclose unexpected terms in contracts. 215) Kempton Hire v Snyman - Misrepresentation by Omission. vi) When a matter falls within the “exclusive knowledge” of one of the parties and honest men would recognise a duty to disclose in accordance with the legal convictions of the community. 216) Dibley v Furter 1951 (4) SA 73 (C ... WebCase Study #31.regarding disaffirmance of a contract by a minor and obligations imposed on minors af 2 a. the minor has lost his right to disaffirm the contract because of the misrepresentation. notes 2 DB 4. Minors Age Misrepresentation.docx 2 DIBLEY v FURTER 1951.pdf 16 Hagan v. Coca-Cola Case Summary 2024.docx 3 Hagan v Coca-Cola … flipping matrix hackerrank solution
(PDF) Expanding the scope of latent defects and the
WebQuestion nineteen In 2024 a similar case to that of Dibley v Furter 1955 (WCC) came before a full bench of the Kwa-Zulu Natal High Court in Pietermaritzburg. The KZN High Court disagreed with the earlier decision of Dibley v Furter , and held that a hidden graveyard on a farm is always a defect if the graveyard is on land the new owner intends ... WebPortee was based on the California Supreme Court case Dillon v. Legg. Under Portee, for a bystander-claimant to prevail, that claimant must demonstrate 1) the death or serious … WebJan 13, 2005 · What constitutes a latent defect is expressed in Dibley v Furter 1951(4) SA 73 (C) as being "those (defects) which either destroy or impair the usefulness of the thing … flipping mastery tools