‘E-mail cancellation valid’

File photo

File photo

Published Nov 24, 2014

Share

Durban - The Supreme Court of Appeal has ruled that a contract between two Durban businesses was lawfully cancelled through e-mails they sent each other.

Last Friday, the court upheld an appeal brought by Spring Forest Trading 599 CC, and set aside a Durban High Court interdict that Wilberry Pty Ltd had obtained.

Wilberry secured the interdict to stop Spring Forest from operating its business, alleging that Spring Forest was in breach of their agreements.

The Electronic Communications and Transactions Act gives legal recognition to agreements done via e-mail, and Spring Forest contended that the agreements were “consensually cancelled” through the e-mails.

Wilberry said the e-mails were merely correspondence related to a meeting.

They argued that they had agreed that any variation of the contract would only be valid if reduced in writing and signed by both parties.

Wilberry has a car-wash business, operated from mobile dispensing units.

The company appointed Spring Forest as its operating agent and the latter rented four units.

Last February, Spring Forest could not meet its rental commitments and the companies met to discuss solutions.

 

Confirmed

After the meeting, Spring Forest’s Gregory Hamilton e-mailed Wilberry’s Nigel Keirby-Smith twice to confirm that no legal action would be taken if they chose to “cancel the agreement and walk away”.

In a replying e-mail, Keirby-Smith confirmed that was on condition that the arrear rentals were paid.

Hamilton sent another e-mail confirming that they had decided to cancel the agreement and would return all equipment and pay the arrears.

By March, the equipment had been returned and the arrears had been paid, but Spring Forest continued to operate its car-wash business because it had a contract with another company.

Wilberry said the e-mails were merely correspondence and even if the court found that it was a cancellation, it did not have a valid “electronic signature” required by the electronic communications act.

The court ruled that there was no dispute about the reliability of the e-mails, the accuracy of the information and the identities of those who had sent the correspondence.

Judge Azhar Cachalia said the names of the parties at the bottom of their e-mails could be considered as “electronic signatures”. - The Mercury

Related Topics: