Phame (Pty) Ltd v Paizes

1973 (3) SA 397 (A) | Appellate Division

Why this case matters

Phame v Paizes is the leading SA Appellate Division authority on dicta et promissa — the doctrine that extends aedilitian relief beyond pure latent-defect cases to material statements made by the seller during negotiations that turn out to be unfounded. It is not the source of the three-part latent-defect test; that is in Dibley v Furter and Glaston House v Inag.

Operative effect

A dictum et promissum is “a material statement made by the seller to the buyer during the negotiations, bearing on the quality of the res vendita (thing sold) and going beyond mere praise and commendation.”

If such a statement turns out to be unfounded, the purchaser has at his disposal the ancient aedilitian remedies:

• the actio redhibitoria — cancel the contract and recover the purchase price; or
• the actio quanti minoris — sue for a reduction in the purchase price (a partial refund equivalent to the diminution in value).

The aedilitian remedies are therefore available in two broad classes of case:

1. Latent-defect cases — the res vendita had a hidden defect at the time of sale. The three-part test (hidden / present at sale / material) is in Dibley v Furter and Glaston House v Inag.
2. Dicta et promissa cases — Phame v Paizes. The seller made a material affirmative statement during negotiations on the faith of which the buyer entered the contract or agreed to the price; the statement turned out to be unfounded.

Facts in summary

The plaintiff negotiated with the defendant in October 1970 to purchase the defendant’s shareholding in, and certain claims against, a company. The principal asset of the company was an immovable property which was rent-producing. To the defendant’s knowledge, the plaintiff was interested in the purchase because of the income derived from the property. Statements were made about that income during the negotiations.

Site reliance

src/content/pages/aedilitian-remedies.md references the Phame family in the three-part-test paragraph, with the corrected attribution applied on 2026-04-24:

“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.”

Earlier site copy attributed the three-part test directly to Phame; that was a misattribution corrected after the Claude Desktop copy-check audit.

Cross-references

• Dibley-Furter-1951.md — three-part test
• Glaston-House-Inag-1977.md — three-part test, AD
• Holmdene-Brickworks-1977.md — actio empti for consequential damages

Status

Operative effect summarised from the SA Law of Sale literature citing the judgment. Not on SAFLII (pre-digital). Verbatim text in SALR physical reports only.