ContractsProf Blog

Editor: Myanna Dellinger
University of South Dakota School of Law

Friday, November 25, 2005

Parol Evidence in South Africa

South_africa_flag A surety who believed he had a prior oral agreement that his liability would be limited but who nevertheless signed an unlimited surety agreement, was entitled to claim the benefit of the earlier oral agreement, according to a recent decision by the Cape High Court in South Africa, Davids and Another v. ABSA Bank Ltd. According to a report by Dawie Malan of Johannesburg’s Cliffe Dekker Inc., the court held that the bankers who presented the agreement to the surety failed to explain the unlimited nature of the liability, despite a recitation in the agreement that it had been explained.

[Frank Snyder]

Commentary, Recent Cases | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Parol Evidence in South Africa: