Case Name:
Ponelat v Schrepfer (802/10) [2011] ZASCA 167 (19 September 2011).

Area of Law:
Contract – whether a tacit contract of universal partnership can be inferred from proven facts.

Brief facts/summary:
The Court a quo had found, inter alia, a universal partnership to have existed between the parties and had ordered its division, thereafter granting leave to appeal such decision.

The Respondent (Plaintiff a quo) alleged a universal partnership (which the Appellant denied) and sought, essentially, for the estate to be divided on the basis thereof.

Despite never having married, it was clear that the parties had lived together in what could be described as a ‘what is mine is yours’ relationship. For all intents and purposes, they had enjoyed a joint household, in which both parties had contributed according to their respective means. The Respondent had even (in addition to her freelance business, from which all income had gone towards the joint expenses) assisted the Appellant with the administration of his business affairs. There are numerous other relevant facts.

The parties had, at one point, become engaged (which was, incidentally, found to not preclude a universal partnership). The Respondent described the Appellant as her ‘protector and provider’. The Appellant had made various promises and had acted in accordance with this title.

The Respondent had become insecure about the relationship and the financial consequences of the arrangement and had sought written confirmation that she was entitled to a half share of the partnership estate. The Appellant’s attorneys put together a written offer, which was rejected by the Respondent.    

The relationship came to an end and the Respondent moved out. She had very few assets to reflect her contribution, over the years, to the relationship. She sought to address this position through the Courts.

“The evidence is clear that the [R]espondent wanted (and, after throwing herself at the mercy of the [A]ppellant, needed) immediate security and that the [R]espondent, aware of that need, voluntarily committed himself to satisfy it.”

The requisite animus contrahendi was found to have existed. The relationship was considered jointly beneficial and was intended to make a profit (important consideration). A universal partnership was found to exist and the estate was divided 35% / 65% between the parties. The appeal was, accordingly, dismissed with costs.

Note: it is worth reading more into how the division of the estate was to be administered (by Order).
  
Importance/value:
A tacit contract of universal partnership can be inferred from proven facts.

WEBSITE DISCLAIMER: Save for the contents of this disclaimer, the content of this website is provided for general information purposes only and should not be construed as, and does not constitute, legal or other professional advice. To the extent that you wish to place reliance upon any information contained on this website, you do so totally at your own risk and we accept no responsibility for any loss or damage whatsoever, howsoever arising. In addition, the hyperlinks provided on this website are provided for convenience only. We make no representations or warranties whatsoever in respect of the accuracy, completeness and/or reliability of any information, opinions, data and/or content provided on such linked website, nor do we endorse or take any responsibility for the content of any such linked website.