*Siman & Co v Barclays National Bank

Question 2

Who was the plaintiff in Siman & Co v Barclays National Bank 1984 (2) SA 888 (A)?

Answer 2

Siman & Co was the plaintiff.

Question 3

What was the financial concern Siman & Co faced in the case?

Answer 3

They had foreign currency debts and feared the Rand would be devalued, increasing repayment costs.

Question 4

When did Siman & Co attempt to secure forward cover?

Answer 4

On a Friday afternoon, around 2 PM.

Question 5

Why did Siman & Co want forward cover?

Answer 5

To protect against a possible devaluation of the Rand over the weekend.

Question 6

What did the bank’s branch manager tell Siman & Co when they requested forward cover?

Answer 6

That it was too late to arrange forward cover and they had to wait until Monday.

Question 7

What happened to the Rand over the weekend?

Answer 7

It was devalued.

Question 8

What was the consequence of the devaluation for Siman & Co?

Answer 8

They had to pay more Rands to settle their foreign debts.

Question 9

On what grounds did Siman & Co sue Barclays National Bank?

Answer 9

They claimed the manager’s statement was incorrect, negligent, and caused their financial loss.

Question 10

What was the outcome in the court a quo?

Answer 10

The court ruled in favour of Barclays National Bank.

Question 11

What did Siman & Co do after the decision of the court a quo?

Answer 11

They appealed the decision.

Question 12

Who is the majority and dissenting judgement made by?

Answer 12

Majority judgement: Trollip JA & Dissenting judgement: Corbett JA.

Question 13

What did Trollip J.A (majority) find regarding the manager’s statement about it being too late to obtain forward cover?

Answer 13

The statement was a misstatement.

Question 14

Did the misstatement cause the plaintiff’s loss according to the majority judgment?

Answer 14

No, the misstatement did not cause the plaintiff’s loss.

Question 15

What did the plaintiff’s own witness, Muir, admit about the timing for procuring forward cover?

Answer 15

That at 2:25 PM, it was not too late to procure forward cover.

Question 16

What were the two distinct acts of the bank manager identified by the court?

Answer 16

(a) Refusal to procure forward cover and (b) the misstatement that it was too late.

Question 17

What was the only act alleged to be negligent by the plaintiff?

Answer 17

The misstatement that it was too late.

Question 18

In assessing causation, what must be ‘eliminated’ to determine if the loss would still have occurred?

Answer 18

Only the misstatement, not the refusal to provide forward cover.

Question 19

What was the likely outcome even if the misstatement had not been made?

Answer 19

The plaintiff probably could not have obtained forward cover elsewhere that afternoon.

Question 20

What caused the plaintiff’s loss according to the majority judgment?

Answer 20

The refusal to procure forward cover, not the misstatement.

Question 21

Was the refusal to procure forward cover alleged to be negligent?

Answer 21

No, the plaintiff did not contest the refusal as negligent.

Question 22

What key legal concept did Corbett J.A explain in his dissenting judgment?

Answer 22

The law on factual causation.

Question 23

What test is used to determine factual causation in South African law?

Answer 23

The ‘but-for’ test.

Question 24

What is the purpose of the but-for test?

Answer 24

To identify whether the defendant’s wrongful act or omission was a necessary cause (causa sine qua non) of the plaintiff’s loss.

Question 25

What is the core question asked in the but-for test?

Answer 25

"But for the defendant’s wrongful act or omission, would the event causing the loss have occurred?"

Question 26

What does the application of the but-for test involve?

Answer 26

A hypothetical inquiry into what probably would have happened if the wrongful act or omission had not occurred.

Question 27

How is the but-for test applied in the case of a positive wrongful act?

Answer 27

By mentally eliminating the act and asking if the harm would still have occurred.

Question 28

What does it mean if the harm would still have occurred after eliminating the act?

Answer 28

The defendant’s conduct was not a factual cause of the harm.

Question 29

What does it mean if the harm would not have occurred after eliminating the act?

Answer 29

The defendant’s conduct was a factual cause of the harm.

Question 30

How is the test applied in cases of omissions?

Answer 30

By substituting a hypothetical lawful course of conduct and asking whether the harm would have occurred under that lawful conduct.

Question 31

What does a positive answer to the substitution test for omissions indicate?

Answer 31

The defendant’s conduct was not a factual cause.

Question 32

What does a negative answer to the substitution test for omissions indicate?

Answer 32

The defendant’s conduct was a factual cause.

Question 33

Are the methods of elimination and substitution rigidly assigned to acts and omissions?

Answer 33

No, the distinction is suggested but not rigid, and the boundary between acts and omissions is not always clear.

Question 34

Did Corbett J.A disagree with the majority on the legal test for causation?

Answer 34

No, he agreed on the law but disagreed on its application to the facts.

Question 35

What did Corbett J.A argue about the manager’s conduct?

Answer 35

That it should not be split into two distinct acts: the refusal and the misstatement.

Question 36

According to Corbett J.A, what would the manager’s message have been if the misstatement were removed?

Answer 36

There was still time to process the application that afternoon if conditions were met promptly and the manager was willing to assist.

Question 37

What did Corbett J.A believe was the correct causation question?

Answer 37

Whether there was enough time to process the application at the branch itself.

Question 38

What conclusion did Corbett J.A reach about causation?

Answer 38

That there would have been enough time, and the misstatement was a contributing cause of the plaintiff’s loss.

Question 39

Who supported the majority judgment and critiqued Corbett J.A’s reasoning?

Answer 39

Anton Fagan.

Question 40

What was Anton Fagan’s first reason for supporting the majority?

Answer 40

Corbett J.A made a misconception about causation by treating actions with the same motive as inseparable.

Question 41

What example did Anton Fagan use to illustrate this misconception?

Answer 41

A speeding driver rushing to a pharmacy, where eliminating speeding doesn’t mean eliminating driving.

Question 42

What was Anton Fagan’s second critique involving a hypothetical situation?

Answer 42

If the misstatement had been fraudulent rather than negligent, Corbett’s reasoning would paradoxically make it less causative of loss.

Question 43

What legal consequence would Anton Fagan’s second critique threaten under Corbett’s approach?

Answer 43

It would undermine the possibility of Aquilian liability for a wrongful misstatement.