THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

JUDGMENT

Reportable

Case No: 725/13

In the matter between:

SPRING FOREST TRADING 599 CC                                                     APPELLANT

and

WILBERRY (PTY) LTD t/a ECOWASH                                    FIRST RESPONDENT
COMBINED MOTOR HOLDINGS LIMITED                        SECOND RESPONDENT
t/a THE GREEN MACHINE

Neutral citation:
Spring Forest Trading v Wilberry (725/13) [2014] ZASCA 178
(21 November 2014)
Coram:
Lewis, Cachalia, Bosielo and Swain JJA and Mocumie AJA
Heard:
10 November 2014
Delivered:
21 November 2014

Summary:
Contract – non-variation clause providing for cancellation to be in
writing and signed by the parties – whether cancellation by email valid
– Whether ss 13(1) and (3) of the Electronic Communications and
Transactions Act 25 of 2002 applies – Whether interim interdict
pendente lite appealable.

___________________________________________________________________
ORDER
___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from: KwaZulu-Natal Local Division, Durban (Madondo J sitting as court
of first instance):

The appeal is upheld with costs. The order of the high court is set aside and in its
place the following is substituted:

‘The application is dismissed with costs.’

___________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
___________________________________________________________________

Cachalia JA (Lewis, Bosielo and Swain JJA and Mocumie AJA concurring)

[1] This is an appeal from a decision of the high court, KwaZulu-Natal, Durban
(Madondo J) granting interim relief pendente lite. The order was granted following an
urgent application by Wilberry (Pty) Ltd t/a as Ecowash against Spring Forest
Trading 599 CC and Combined Motor Holdings Limited t/a The Green Machine
(CMH). CMH is cited because it has an interest in the relief claimed, but is not party
to this appeal. So the protagonists in this appeal are Spring Forest Trading 599 CC
and Wilberry (Pty) Ltd t/a Ecowash. They shall be referred to as the appellant and
respondent respectively.

[2] The appeal concerns a series of emails purporting to consensually cancel
written agreements between the parties. The agreements required any ‘consensual
cancellation’ to be in writing and signed by them. The Electronic Communications
and Transactions Act 25 of 2002 (the Act) gives legal recognition to transactions

concluded electronically by email. The dispute between the parties requires us to
consider whether their exchange of emails met the writing and signature
requirements of the Act thereby constituting a consensual cancellation.

[3] The learned judge found that the e-mail communications as a fact did not
evince an intention to cancel the agreements, but merely recorded the inconclusive
negotiations between the parties to that end. And, that in any event, the parties had
not specified that their agreements could be cancelled by the exchange of emails.
He thus held that the Act did not apply to the emails and that the appellant’s
purported cancellation of the agreements was in conflict with the terms of their
written agreements, and therefore invalid. This appeal is with his leave.

[4] The facts are uncomplicated. The respondent is the proprietor of an ‘Eco-
Wash System’ operated from one of its ‘Mobile Dispensing Units’ (MDU’s). The
business involves washing cars in the parking lots of shopping malls, office parks,
hotels and hospitals. The parties concluded a written agreement (the master
agreement) on 28 April 2012 in terms of which the respondent appointed the
appellant as its operating agent. This gave the appellant the right to promote,
operate and rent out the respondent’s MDU’s to third parties. The agreement
contained a non-variation clause providing that no variation or consensual
cancellation would be effective unless reduced to writing and signed by both parties.

[5] On 20 June and 23 July 2012 the parties concluded four subsidiary rental
agreements all of which were subject to the respondent’s standard terms of business
as set out in the master agreement. The rental agreements permitted the appellants
to lease the respondent’s MDU’s at four locations. They also contained non-variation
clauses providing that ‘no variation . . . or agreement to cancel shall be of any force
and effect unless in writing and signed by both you and us’.

[6] The appellant was not able to meet its rental commitments under the rental
agreements on 1 February 2013. The parties then met in Durban on the morning of
25 February 2013 to discuss how they should proceed in light of the appellant’s
failure to meet its rental obligations. The respondent was represented at the meeting
by Mr Nigel Keirby-Smith and the appellant by Mr Gregory Stuart Hamilton and
Mr Walter Burger. Keirby-Smith put four proposals to the appellant’s representatives.
They undertook to consider these and respond after the meeting.

[7] Hamilton dispatched an email to Keirby-Smith later that morning at 11h44 am
confirming the proposals. It read:
‘Hi Nigel,
Thanks for meeting with Walter and I today. I would like to clarify the options that you
mentioned to us today.
1/
Pay a cash amount of R1 600 000.00 for the balance of 2 years.
2/
Cancel agreement and walk away.
3/
Carry on operating but we would end up in court.
4/
Pay R1 000.00 per month for 5 years with 15 % escalation.
Please confirm the above then we will advise tomorrow.
Kind Regards
Greg.’
At 11h56 am, Hamilton sent a further email to Keirby-Smith:
‘Hi Nigel,
[Fu]rther to my previous mail, to clarify point 2. Please confirm that should we elect this
option to walk away, there [wi]ll be no further claim or legal action from either side.
Kind Regards
Greg.’
At 12h18 pm, Keirby-Smith replied:

‘Hi Greg,
That is correct subject to my last reply.
Nigel.’
The ‘last reply’ referred to in the email above was sent from Keirby-Smith’s address
(nigel@ecowash.co.za) at 12h05 pm. It read:
‘All arrear rentals due at the date of handover will be due.
Henry Wilkinson
Chief Executive Officer.’
At 04h02 pm, Hamilton sent the final email in this exchange:
‘Dear Henry and Nigel,
[A]s per our discussion this morning and follow up emails, we thank you for the 4 options
offered to us. We confirm that we accept your second offer whereby we will return all
equipment leased to us and that there shall be no further legal recourse from either party.
We would like all equipment picked up on or before 28 February 2013 so that we do not
incur further lease costs for the following month.
Kind Regards
Greg.’

[8] On 13 March 2013, the appellant paid the arrear rentals. However, it
continued operating its car washing business at the locations covered by the rental
agreements. It says it was entitled to do this as both the master and rental
agreements between it and the respondent had been cancelled. And following the
cancellation it entered into an agreement with another entity – CMH – to use its
mobile cleaning devices at the locations from which it had been operating.

[9] The respondent denies that the agreements were validly cancelled. It
therefore sought and was granted interdictory relief to protect its proprietary rights in
its MDU’s pending the institution of an action for breach of the agreements.

[10] The appellant’s case is this. The respondent offered four options to the
appellant at the meeting on 25 February 2013. The appellant accepted the second
option – that it could cancel the agreements and walk away – in writing by email. The
parties agreed further in the series of emails that once the appellant had paid the
arrear rental, which it did on 13 March 2013, and the respondent’s equipment had
been returned, which was also done, there had been a consensual cancellation of
the agreement. The cancellation meets with the requirements for the information to
be recorded in writing and signed by the parties in terms of s 13(3) of the Act.

[11] The respondent disputes the appellant’s argument. It contends that the email
exchange was merely a negotiation between the parties regarding the appellant’s
breaches and did not amount to a consensual cancellation of the agreements, a
contention that the high court upheld. At best for the appellant, says the respondent,
the emails refer only to the rental agreements, not the master agreement. However,
if they do evince a cancellation of both the master and the rental agreements, the
emails did not comply with s 13(1) of the Act. This is because the section requires an
‘advanced electronic signature’ to be used on an email when a signature is required
by law – as specified by the non-variation clause in this case – and no such
signature appears on the emails. In addition, s 13(3), relied upon by the appellant to
bring the emails within the ambit of the Act, does not apply for reasons given later in
this judgment.1

[12] The respondent’s contention that the emails merely record a negotiation and
do not amount to an agreement to cancel is utterly without merit. The emails say
emphatically and unambiguously that once the appellant settles the arrear rental and
returns the respondent’s equipment it may ‘walk away’ without any further legal
obligation. This can only mean – and did mean – that the parties considered that all
agreements between them (the master and subsidiary rental agreements) would be
cancelled once the appellant had satisfied two obligations: payment of the arrear
rental and return of equipment. The obligations were met and the agreements

1 Sections 13(1) and (3) are set out below para [17].

therefore do evince a consensual cancellation. Whether this cancellation by email
fulfilled the requirements of the non-variation clauses to be in writing and signed by
both parties requires a consideration of the relevant provisions of the Act.

[13] Before I consider these it is necessary to remind ourselves that when parties
impose restrictions on their own power to vary or cancel a contract – as they did in
this case – they do so to achieve certainty and avoid later disputes. The obligation to
reduce the cancellation agreement to writing and have it signed was aimed at
preventing disputes regarding the terms of the cancellation and the identity of the
parties authorised to effect it. Our courts have confirmed the efficacy of such
clauses.2

[14] It is apparent from the parties’ opposing contentions that the proper
interpretation of ss 13(1) and (3) lies at the heart of this dispute. But these provisions
have to be analysed in their context. This requires us to consider other sections that
also have a bearing on this analysis.

[15] The Act’s main objective is to ‘enable and facilitate electronic communications
and transactions in the public interest’.3 ‘Electronic communications’ is defined as
‘communication by means of data messages’. ‘Transaction’ is defined to include ‘a
transaction of either a commercial or non-commercial nature . . .’. An email means
‘electronic mail, a data message used or intended to be used as a mail message
between the originator and addressee in an electronic communication’.4 It is thus
common ground that the email-exchange between the parties is governed by the
Act.

2 SA Sentrale Ko-op Graanmaatskappy Bpk v Shifren & andere 1964 (4) SA 760 (A); Brisley v Drotsky
2002 (4) SA 1 (SCA). See generally R H Christie & G B Bradfield Christie’s The Law of Contract in
South Africa 6 ed at 464-466.
3 Section 2(1) of the Act.
4 Section 1 of the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act 25 of 2002.

[16] One of the Act’s aims is to promote legal certainty and confidence in respect
of electronic communications and transactions.5 So, when interpreting the Act, the
courts are enjoined to recognise and accommodate electronic transactions and data
messages in the application of any statutory law or the common law.6 Thus when
there are formal requirements of writing and signature imposed by statute or the
parties to a transaction, these can generally be satisfied through electronic
transactions.7 There are, however, exceptions where agreements may not be
generated electronically. These are the agreements for the sale of immovable
property, wills, bills of exchange and stamp duties.8

[17] A legal requirement for an agreement to be in writing, subject to the
exceptions mentioned above, is satisfied if it is in the form of a data message.9 There
is no dispute in this case that the emails met this requirement. The real dispute is
about whether or not the names of the parties at the foot of their emails constituted
signatures as contemplated in ss 13(1) and (3). Section 13 reads as follows:
‘(1) Where the signature of a person is required by law and such law does not specify the
type of signature, that requirement in relation to a data message is met only if an advanced
electronic signature is used.
(2) . . .
(3) Where an electronic signature is required by the parties to an electronic transaction and
the parties have not agreed on the type of electronic signature to be used, that requirement
is met in relation to a data message if-
(a) a method is used to identify the person and to indicate the person's approval of the
information communicated; and
(b) having regard to all the relevant circumstances at the time the method was used, the
method was as reliable as was appropriate for the purposes for which the information was
communicated.’

5 Section 2(1)(e).
6 Section 3 of the Act.
7 Section 4(1) provides that the Act applies to any electronic transaction or data message: Christie’s
The Law of Contract in South Africa op cit at 109.
8 These are specifically provided for in ss 4(3) and 4(4) of the Act read with the applicable schedules.
9 Section 12(a).

[18] It is apparent that the Act distinguishes between instances where the law
requires a signature and those in which the parties to a transaction impose this
obligation upon themselves. Where a signature is required by law and the law does
not specify the type of signature to be used, s 13(1) says that this requirement is met
only if an ‘advanced electronic signature’ is used. Where, however, the parties to an
electronic transaction require this but they have not specified the type of electronic
signature to be used, the requirement is met if a method is used to identify the
person and to indicate the person’s approval of the information communicated (s
13(3)(a)); and having regard to the circumstances when the method was used, it was
appropriately reliable for the purpose for which the information was communicated
(s 13(3)(b)).10

[19] The respondent submits that the phrase: ‘Where the signature of a person is
required by law’ (emphasis added) in s 13(1) it should be interpreted not only to
include formalities required by statute but must also incorporate instances where
parties to an agreement impose their own formalities on a contract, as in this case.
And, so the contention goes, because the parties required their signatures for the
contracts to be cancelled the requirement could only be satisfied by the use of an
advanced electronic signature as contemplated in s 13(1), which did not occur in this
case.

[20] In my view the respondent’s reliance on s 13(1) is misplaced for two reasons.
First, the non-variation clauses were agreed upon by the parties: they were not
imposed upon the parties by any law.11 Secondly, when one has regard to the
purpose for which an advanced electronic signature is required it is apparent that it
does not apply to the private agreements between these parties.

10 Christie’s The Law of Contract in South Africa op cit p 110.
11 See for example s 6(12) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008.

[21] An ‘advanced electronic signature’ is a signature which results from a process
accredited by an Accreditation Authority.12 It is used for accredited ‘authentication
products and services’ which are designed to identify the holder of the electronic
signature to other persons. An application for accreditation must be made in a
prescribed manner supported by prescribed information and accompanied by a non-
refundable fee. Furthermore, elaborate and strict criteria are applicable for the
accreditation of authentication products and services to which the electronic
signature relates.

[22] There is no suggestion that either of the parties’ businesses deal in products
and services to which contracts that require advanced electronic signatures as
envisaged in the Act relate. And to impose the onerous requirements and criteria for
accreditation upon the parties in this case would have a detrimental effect on
electronic transactions, and the obligation of the courts, when interpreting the Act, to
recognise and accommodate electronic transactions and data messages in the
application of any statutory law or the common law. In addition, it would render s
13(3) – which provides for private agreements between parties – superfluous. In my
view s 13(1) does not apply in the circumstances of this case, and on the face of it, s
13(3) does.

[23] The respondent, however, says that even if s 13(3) does apply to private
agreements between parties the section does not assist the appellant. It advances
three grounds to support this submission: First, it contends that the emails do not
and cannot constitute a separate electronic transaction because they pertain to the
oral negotiations about the written agreements. Secondly, even if they do constitute
a separate electronic transaction, the parties did not require an electronic signature
as envisaged in the section; and finally, there was no reliable method used whereby
the parties were identified and indicated their approval of the information
communicated in the emails.

12 Sections 1 and 37 of the Act.

[24] Regarding the first ground – that the emails do not constitute a separate
transaction – the simple answer is that they do. The oral negotiations between the
parties were reduced to writing in the form of emails and constituted an agreement to
cancel their written agreements. And s 22(1) of the Act says emphatically that ‘[A]n
agreement is not without legal force and effect merely because it was concluded
partly or in whole by means of data messages’.

[25] As to the second ground – the requirement for an ‘electronic signature’ – a
brief discussion on how the courts generally approach signature requirements is
necessary. Commonly understood a signature is ‘a person’s name written in a
distinctive way as a form of identification . . . .’13 But this is not the only way the law
requires a document to be signed. In the days before electronic communication, the
courts were willing to accept any mark made by a person for the purpose of attesting
a document, or identifying it as his act, to be a valid signature. They went even
further and accepted a mark made by a magistrate for a witness, whose participation
went only as far as symbolically touching the magistrate’s pen.14

[26] The approach of the courts to signatures has therefore been pragmatic, not
formalistic. They look to whether the method of the signature used fulfils the function
of a signature – to authenticate the identity of the signatory – rather than insist on the
form of the signature used.

[27] The Act describes an electronic signature – which is not to be confused with
an advanced electronic signature – as ‘data attached to, incorporated in, or logically
associated with other data and which is intended by the user to serve as a
signature’.15 Put simply, so long as the ‘data’ in an email is intended by the user to
serve as a signature and is logically connected with other data in the email the
requirement for an electronic signature is satisfied. This description accords with the

13 Concise Oxford Dictionary 12 ed.
14 Putter v Provincial Insurance Co Ltd & another 1963 (3) SA 145 (W) at 148F-G.
15 Section 1.

practical and non-formalistic way the courts have treated the signature requirement
at common law.

[28] The argument that s 13(3) does not apply because the parties did not require
an electronic signature as contemplated in the section, is based, in my view, on a
misreading of the section. It envisages a situation where a signature is required by
the parties but the parties have not specified the type of electronic signature that is
required.16 Here the parties did require a signature to cancel the agreement, but
when they cancelled the agreement by email they did not specify the type of
electronic signature that was required. So, the section does apply in the
circumstances of this case. The typewritten names of the parties at the foot of the
emails, which were used to identify the users, constitute ‘data’ that is logically
associated with the data in the body of the emails, as envisaged in the definition of
an ‘electronic signature’. They therefore satisfy the requirement of a signature and
had the effect of authenticating the information contained in the emails.

[29] The third ground for which the respondent contends – that there was no
reliable method used in the emails whereby the parties were identified and indicated
their approval of the information communicated – is also without merit. There is no
dispute regarding the reliability of the emails, the accuracy of the information
communicated or the identities of the persons who appended their names to the
emails. On the contrary, as I have found earlier, the emails clearly and
unambiguously evinced an intention by the parties to cancel their agreements. It ill-
behoves the respondent, which responded to clear questions by email itself, to now
rely on the non-variation clauses to escape the consequences of its commitments
made at the meeting on 25 February 2013 which were later confirmed by email.

[30] I turn to the final issue in this appeal. At the outset the parties were asked to
address the question as to whether the order of the high court, being an interim order

16 Christie’s The Law of Contract in South Africa op cit p 110.

pending an action for damages to be instituted by the respondent against the
appellant for breach of contract, was appealable.

[31] In granting the relief sought the court found that the appellant had established
that, on a proper interpretation of the emails, the written agreements and the relevant
provisions of the Act, the respondent had established a ‘clear right’ to the relief
claimed. The order thus disposes of the main issue between the parties concerning
the cancellation of the agreements. This means that the respondent’s right to claim
damages for breach of contract is no longer an issue open for consideration by the
trial court. All that remains, once the respondent commences its action for breach of
contract, is to prove and quantify its contractual damages. The interdict restraining
the appellant from conducting its business in competition with the respondent is
therefore final in effect, and appealable. On this the parties agree.

[32] The following order is made:
The appeal is upheld with costs. The order of the high court is set aside and in its
place the following order is substituted:
‘The application is dismissed with costs.’

_________________
A CACHALIA
JUDGE OF APPEAL

APPEARANCES

For Appellant:
C T Vetter

Instructed by:

Shepstone & Wylie Attorneys, Durban

Webbers, Bloemfontein

For First Respondent:
M E Stewart

Instructed by:

Biccari Bollo Mariano Inc, Durban

E G Cooper Majiedt Inc, Bloemfontein
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

MEDIA SUMMARY – JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL

From:
The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal
Date:
21 November 2014
Status:
Immediate

Please note that the media summary is intended for the benefit of the media and
does not form part of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal.

SPRING FOREST TRADING 599 CC

v

WILBERRY (PTY) LTD t/a ECOWASH & ANOTHER

The Supreme Court of Appeal (the SCA) today upheld an appeal against a
decision of the High Court KwaZulu-Natal holding that it was not permissible for a
written agreement, which required cancellation to be in writing and signed by the
parties, to be cancelled by email.

The parties to the dispute were Wilberry (Pty) Ltd (Wilberry) and Spring Forest
Trading (Spring Forest). They entered into several agreements in terms of which
Spring Forest leased from Wilberry its Mobile Dispensing Units for use in its car
wash business. The agreements contained clauses providing that the agreements
may only be cancelled in writing and signed by the parties.

Spring Forest was no able to meet its rental commitments and the parties met in
Durban of 25 February 2013 and agreed to cancel their agreements. The terms of
the cancellation were recorded in an email exchange. The names of the parties
appeared at the foot of each email.

Spring Forest then entered into an agreement with another entity to conduct the
same business. In response Wilberry instituted proceedings in the Durban High
Court to interdict Spring Forest from continuing its business on the grounds that
this was in breach of their agreements. The interdict was sought pending an
application for breach of contract that Wilberry was to institute against Spring
Forest within 30 days of the interdict. The high court grant the interdict and Spring
Forest appealed to the SCA.

On appeal the SCA held that the email exchange between the parties met the
requirements for the cancellation agreement to be in writing. It also held that the
typewritten names of the parties at the foot of the emails constituted electronic
signatures as envisaged in s 13(3) of the Electronic Communications and
Transactions Act 25 of 2002. The signatures therefore complied with the
requirements of the parties for the cancellation agreement to be signed by them.
The SCA therefore upheld the appeal by Spring Forest and ordered Wilberry to pay
the costs of the appeal.