REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK JUDGMENT Case no: I 236/2004 In the matter between: PROMAR CC PLAINTIFF and BLUE SEAL EXPORTERS CC FIRST DEFENDANT GERALD EUGENE ROUX SECOND DEFENDANT Neutral citation: Promar CC v Blue Seal Exporters CC (I 236/2004) [2014] NAHCMD 10 (23 January 2014) Coram: PARKER AJ Heard: 10 14 June 2013; 14 16 October 2013; 18 October 2013 – – Delivered: 23 January 2014 Flynote: Contract Purchase and sale Plaintiff (seller) relying on an oral – – agreement to sell and the second defendant (buyer) to purchase horse mackerel – Plaintiff unable to supply total contract consignment Parties subsequently agreed – that plaintiff could supplement consignment with mackerel Court held that there – was only one original agreement and the agreement to supplement mackerel was an amendment of a term of the original agreement The amendment does not – constitute a new and separate agreement which can stand on its own and capable of being severed from the original agreement The evidence indicates that that was – the only substantive term that was amended. Summary: Contract Purchase and sale Plaintiff (seller) relying on an oral – – agreement to sell and second defendant (buyer) to purchase horse mackerel Fish – loaded on vessel fell short of the total contract consignment Subsequently, parties – agreed that consignment could be supplemented with mackerel Court found that – the subsequent agreement on supplementation constituted an amendment of the
REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA HIGH COURT OF NAMIBIA MAIN DIVISION, WINDHOEK JUDGMENT Case no: I 236/2004 In the matter between: PROMAR CC PLAINTIFF and BLUE SEAL EXPORTERS CC FIRST DEFENDANT GERALD EUGENE ROUX SECOND DEFENDANT Neutral citation: Promar CC v Blue Seal Exporters CC (I 236/2004) [2014] NAHCMD 10 (23 January 2014) Coram: PARKER AJ Heard: 10 – 14 June 2013; 14 – 16 October 2013; 18 October 2013 Delivered: 23 January 2014 Flynote: Contract – Purchase and sale – Plaintiff (seller) relying on an oral agreement to sell and the second defendant (buyer) to purchase horse mackerel – Plaintiff unable to supply total contract consignment – Parties subsequently agreed that plaintiff could supplement consignment with mackerel – Court held that there was only one original agreement and the agreement to supplement mackerel was an amendment of a term of the original agreement – The amendment does not constitute a new and separate agreement which can stand on its own and capable of being severed from the original agreement – The evidence indicates that that was the only substantive term that was amended. Summary: Contract – Purchase and sale – Plaintiff (seller) relying on an oral agreement to sell and second defendant (buyer) to purchase horse mackerel – Fish loaded on vessel fell short of the total contract consignment – Subsequently, parties agreed that consignment could be supplemented with mackerel – Court found that the subsequent agreement on supplementation constituted an amendment of the
Promar%20CC%20v%20Blue%20Seal%20Exporters%20CC%20(I%20236-2004)%20[2014]%20NAHCMD%2010%20(23%20January%202014).docx