Dibley v Furter
1951 (4) SA 73 (C)
- src/content/pages/aedilitian-remedies.md — canonical three-part latent-defect test Aedilitian remedies →
1951 (4) SA 73 (C) | Cape Provincial Division | Van Zyl J
Why this case matters
One of the canonical SA restatements of the seller’s duty to disclose latent defects and the three-part latent-defect test under the aedilitian rules. Cited alongside Glaston House (Pty) Ltd v Inag (Pty) Ltd 1977 (2) SA 846 (A).
Operative effect
Van Zyl J held that in every contract of sale, the seller is obliged to disclose all known latent defects which render the res vendita substantially unfit for the purpose for which it is sold. The judgment draws on Pothier’s Treatise on Contract Sale, which establishes the underlying obligation: in a contract of sale the seller is obliged in good faith to declare all that he knows about the thing sold to the purchaser.
Where this duty is breached, the buyer’s aedilitian remedies are available:
- actio redhibitoria — cancellation and full refund;
- actio quanti minoris — price reduction equal to the diminution in value attributable to the defect.
The three-part latent-defect test
Across Dibley v Furter and Glaston House v Inag, the test for whether a defect supports aedilitian relief is whether the defect is:
- Hidden — not discoverable on reasonable inspection by an ordinary non-expert buyer.
- Present at sale — existing at the time of sale, at least in embryonic form, even if it only manifested later.
- Material — serious enough to render the goods unfit or substantially less fit for purpose.
Site reliance
src/content/pages/aedilitian-remedies.md cites Dibley v Furter alongside Glaston House v Inag as the canonical restatements of the three-part test:
“The test, worked out across the line of cases applying the aedilitian rules (see Dibley v Furter 1951 (4) SA 73 (C) and Glaston House (Pty) Ltd v Inag (Pty) Ltd 1977 (2) SA 846 (A) for the canonical restatements; Phame (Pty) Ltd v Paizes 1973 (3) SA 397 (A) extends the family to dicta et promissa), is three-part.”
Cross-references
- Glaston-House-Inag-1977.md — three-part test, AD restatement
- Phame-Paizes-1973.md — dicta et promissa extension
- Holmdene-Brickworks-1977.md — actio empti for consequential damages
Status
Pre-digital judgment — not on SAFLII. Operative principle and seller’s-duty-to-disclose summarised from SA Law of Sale literature. Verbatim text in SALR physical reports only.