damage that was occasioned to the vehicle he rented for his ill-fated safari in Namibia. It is only after the damage to the rented car that he found out that the defendants in fact had no insurance with an insurer and that, as they said, they were He ‘self-insured’. therefore seeks to recover from the defendants the amount he paid over to them after the damage to the vehicle as, according to him, he ought not to have paid it as the damage to the vehicle was within the contemplation of the insurance offered by the defendants and accepted by him. [54] In the alternative, the plaintiff’s case is that the defendants repaired the vehicle for considerably less than the amount that they demanded (and he paid to them) as representing the value for the repairs to the vehicle. [55] To succeed on his under misrepresentation, the plaintiff has to establish on a balance of probabilities that he was offered insurance in respect of the rented car which he accepted and the terms of that insurance. In addition, whether it is fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation, that cause of action is delictual in nature although arising from contractual terms and the plaintiff bears the onus to prove that the loss was the result of the misrepresentation. (In respect of fraudulent misrepresentation, see Caxton Printing Works (Pty) Ltd v Tvl Advertising Contractors Ltd 1936 TPD 209 at 215 and Ruto Flour Mills (Pty) v Adelson (2) 1958 (4) SA 307 (T) 310F; and in regard to negligent misrepresentation: Bayer South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Frost 1991 (4) SA 559 (A) at 570D-F). [56] The plaintiff’s case appears to be that he was offered or ‘full’ ‘comprehensive’ insurance which would cover him for the loss to the vehicle from driving through a riverbed. The difficulty facing him is that such a proposition is directly in conflict with the very rental agreement on which he, amongst others, relies for the existence of an insurance cover. [57] I have seen the photographs presented in evidence as part of the defendants’ case depicting the location where the rented car got stuck in the river and was overturned by the flash flood. It became quite clear to me that the route that the plaintiff
damage that was occasioned to the vehicle he rented for his ill-fated safari in Namibia. It is only after the damage to the rented car that he found out that the defendants in fact had no insurance with an insurer and that, as they said, they were ‘self-insured’. He therefore seeks to recover from the defendants the amount he paid over to them after the damage to the vehicle as, according to him, he ought not to have paid it as the damage to the vehicle was within the contemplation of the insurance offered by the defendants and accepted by him. [54] In the alternative, the plaintiff’s case is that the defendants repaired the vehicle for considerably less than the amount that they demanded (and he paid to them) as representing the value for the repairs to the vehicle. [55] To succeed on his under misrepresentation, the plaintiff has to establish on a balance of probabilities that he was offered insurance in respect of the rented car which he accepted and the terms of that insurance. In addition, whether it is fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation, that cause of action is delictual in nature although arising from contractual terms and the plaintiff bears the onus to prove that the loss was the result of the misrepresentation. (In respect of fraudulent misrepresentation, see Caxton Printing Works (Pty) Ltd v Tvl Advertising Contractors Ltd 1936 TPD 209 at 215 and Ruto Flour Mills (Pty) v Adelson (2) 1958 (4) SA 307 (T) 310F; and in regard to negligent misrepresentation: Bayer South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Frost 1991 (4) SA 559 (A) at 570D-F). [56] The plaintiff’s case appears to be that he was offered ‘full’ or ‘comprehensive’ insurance which would cover him for the loss to the vehicle from driving through a riverbed. The difficulty facing him is that such a proposition is directly in conflict with the very rental agreement on which he, amongst others, relies for the existence of an insurance cover. [57] I have seen the photographs presented in evidence as part of the defendants’ case depicting the location where the rented car got stuck in the river and was overturned by the flash flood. It became quite clear to me that the route that the plaintiff
Dannecker%20v%20Leopard%20Tours%20Car%20and%20Camping%20Hire%20CC%20(I%202909-2006)%20[2016]%20NAHCMD%20381%20(5%20December%202016).docx