meaning that is consistent with a tacit term pleaded in paragraph 13.6.2 of the plaintiff’s amended Particulars of Claim. [12] In this regard I find also that the defendant’s argument in respect of in admissible evidence on the Parol Evidence Rule finds no application as it appears clearly from the aforementioned authorities that the parties, at the trial, would very well be able to lead admissible evidence relating to the factual matrix of the case and - I – quote again which may include absolutely everything which would have affected – ‘ the way in which the language of the document would have been understood by a reasonable man’ , that is the reasonable man, having all the background … knowledge, which would reasonably have been available to the parties in the situation they were at the time of the contract ’. [13] In the result: The application for to Appeal is granted. The costs of the said application, inclusive of the costs occasioned by the postponement of the matter on 13 September 2017, which costs are to include the costs of two instructed- and one instructing counsel, are to be costs in the cause of the appeal. The case is postponed to 26 June 2018 at 08h30 for a status hearing (Reason: To await the outcome of the appeal). ---------------------------------- H GEIER
meaning that is consistent with a tacit term pleaded in paragraph 13.6.2 of the plaintiff’s amended Particulars of Claim. [12] In this regard I find also that the defendant’s argument in respect of in admissible evidence on the Parol Evidence Rule finds no application as it appears clearly from the aforementioned authorities that the parties, at the trial, would very well be able to lead admissible evidence relating to the factual matrix of the case – and - I quote again – which may include ‘ absolutely everything which would have affected the way in which the language of the document would have been understood by a reasonable man’ … , that is the reasonable man, having all the background knowledge, which would reasonably have been available to the parties in the situation they were at the time of the contract ’. [13] In the result: The application for to Appeal is granted. The costs of the said application, inclusive of the costs occasioned by the postponement of the matter on 13 September 2017, which costs are to include the costs of two instructed- and one instructing counsel, are to be costs in the cause of the appeal. The case is postponed to 26 June 2018 at 08h30 for a status hearing (Reason: To await the outcome of the appeal). ---------------------------------- H GEIER
African%20Selection%20Trust%20SA%20v%20Namsov%20Fishing%20(HC-MD-CIV-ACT-CON-2016-03860)%20[2017]%20NAHCMD%20363%20(17%20November%202017).docx