n SA Mercantile Law Journal = SA Tydskrif vir Handelsreg - Bureaucratic bungling, deliberate misconduct and claims for pure economic loss in the tender process
|Article Title||Bureaucratic bungling, deliberate misconduct and claims for pure economic loss in the tender process|
|© Publisher:||Juta Law Publishing|
|Journal||SA Mercantile Law Journal = SA Tydskrif vir Handelsreg|
|Affiliations||1 University of South Africa|
|Publication Date||Jan 2014|
|Pages||387 - 415|
South African Post Office v De Lacy and Another is the fourth in a line of Supreme Court of Appeal cases where plaintiffs had claimed damages arising from tenders for the supply of goods and services. Unlike in Minister of Finance and Others v Gore NO, where liability was upheld and large amounts in damages were awarded against the government, the claim in De Lacy suffered the same fate as that in Olitzki Property Holdings v State Tender Board and Steenkamp NO v Provincial Tender Board, Eastern Cape. As all four cases involved financial loss resulting from being unsuccessful in a tender award, one may ask: why did the claim in Gore succeed while those in the other three cases failed? Another pertinent question is: if applicants in a judicial review could succeed in setting aside a tender award resulting from an administrative irregularity as in the case of Steenkamp, or for any other form of impeachable administrative wrong, why would such a party not recover damages for loss of profit or out-of-pocket expenses arising from the botched transaction?
Article metrics loading...