Witryna13 cze 2016 · (See Hersman v Shapiro and Company 1926 TPD 367 at 379). ... (See Nochomowitz v Santam Insurance Co. Ltd 1972(1) SA 718 (T) at 727G-H). [27] The first plaintiff’s position, as at the time of the collision and thereafter, is clear from her oral evidence. The income attributed to the deceased in the actuarial reports was actually … Witryna9 See Hersman v Shapiro & Co 1926 TPD 367; Esso Standard SA (Pty) Ltd v Katz 1981 (1) SA 964 (A) and Southern Insurance Association Ltd v Bailey NO 1984 (1) …
Graphlink Inv. (Pvt) Ltd. v Puzey and Payne (Pvt) Ltd. (HH 123 of …
WitrynaHersman v Shapiro & Co 1926 TPD This case is the authority for the South African rule on supervening impossibility. In this case the seller contracted to deliver a certain … Witrynano award. See Hersman v Shapiro & Co 1926 TPD 367 at 379 per STRATFORD J: ‘Monetary damage having been suffered, it is necessary for the Court to assess the … D\u0027Attoma 10
NOT REPORTABLE CASE NO: I 1426/2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF …
Witrynathe appellant (the defendant) in the court below. The delay in the prosecution by the respondent of his claim is unexplained on the record. He was dismissed from the employ of the appellant almost thirteen years ago. His combined summons seeking damages for unlawful dismissal was issued 2 on 24 July 1987. This was then amended twice. WitrynaThe court was referred to the authorities Hersman v Shapiro & Co 1926 TPD 367 and Bidoli v Elliston t/t Truck and Plant 2002 NR 451 HC in support of his submissions as well as Herbsten & Van Winsen “The Civil Practice of the High Courts of South Africa 5 th ed. Vo.l 1 p. 565 – 566” (in which Rule 18(4) is discussed). http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAKZDHC/2024/12.pdf razor blade \u0026 soul