Parking Management SystemCondition PrecedentResolutive ConditionPrescriptionTermination of Contract
Tags
Verbal ContractSpecific PerformanceDamagesBreach of Contract
legislation
Statutes Cited
Prescription Act
ai analysis
Case Summary
Key Issues
{"issue_text":"Whether the appellant's claim had prescribed in terms of the Prescription Act.","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Termination notice date and date of service of summons."}
{"issue_text":"Whether the court a quo erred in refusing specific performance.","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Condition precedent of availability of funds."}
{"issue_text":"Whether the court a quo erred in dismissing the alternative claim for damages.","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Breach of contract and condition precedent."}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The parties entered into a verbal agreement in 2014 for the supply and installation of a fully automated parking management system in Harare. The appellant installed the system on 500 bays and supplied handheld devices, which were paid for. The agreement for the remaining 4,445 bays was conditional on the availability of funds. The respondent terminated the agreement in 2017, and the appellant sued for specific performance and damages in 2021.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases