Kerr explains that a buyer who avails himself of the guarantee is entitled to a refund of the purchase price (or any of the parts paid) and, if a loss in excess of the amount can be proven, to compensation for that loss.   The action is a contractual action brought with actio empti. This question is raised by Kerr.  It is therefore hardly necessary to describe them in detail here. As for gaps, Corbett`s words YES in Holmdene continue to apply. Remedies are only if the disease or defect existed at the time of sale.   Kerr says: Especially in sales, there must be an agreement on: It is a general rule of our law that there can be no valid purchase contract unless the parties have expressly or implicitly agreed on a purchase price. However, in cases where there has been a series of successive sales, intermediaries who have purchased goods and subsequently sold them to other parties have standing to determine whether the person claiming a property right has a legitimate right to do so.  If there is an express contractual term that is manifestly contrary to a voetstoots clause, the question arises as to whether the buyer is bringing an action against the seller. The answer depends on the scope of the term in the given circumstances. If the period exceeds the scope of aedilitic liability, the voetstoots clause cannot help the seller. For example, a used car is sold, where the seller has guaranteed that the car has a new camshaft, and the car is sold voetstoots.
If the seller delivers the car with a new camshaft, he is not responsible for hidden defects in this new camshaft. However, if the camshaft is not new, the buyer has the usual remedies in case of breach of contract, which have nothing to do with adilitic remedies. South Africa follows Roman rule in terms of risk. In the absence of negligence on the part of the Seller, the general rule is that the risk is transferred to the Buyer if the sale is perfecta: that is, as soon as the purchase contract is concluded, and before the delivery or payment of the price.  Patent defects are defects that are obvious to the naked eye and easily recognizable by the buyer at the time of receipt of the goods. An example would be a crust on a sheep. If certain goods are identified or if insecure goods are left in the contract by the seller and the goods have an obvious defect, the seller may be sued for breach of contract due to defective performance.  The remedies are therefore contractual in nature; Indirect damages may be claimed. Actio quanti minoris may also be requested in a second set of circumstances. If the deficiency has such a character that it is not large enough to produce a rehibitoric effect, it can nevertheless lead to an actio quanti minoris. A buyer can therefore demand a reduction in the purchase price if he (despite the defect) would still have concluded the contract, but at a lower price. A buyer may bring an action for protection against dismissal and, in the alternative, claim damages for quanti Minoris.
„The Parties,“ Mackeurtan writes, „may include in their agreement any provision they desire, subject to the restrictions set forth below. These may suspend operations or result in the termination of the contract until an uncertain future event occurs [….] The first class is suspensive and the second resolved.  If it turns out that the conditions cannot be met, the contract fails. It is not a prerequisite to a valid purchase agreement that ownership passes from the seller to the buyer. Although parties to a sale generally consider this, it is not an essential feature of a sales contract, and (as we have seen) sales by non-owners are allowed. At common law, the transfer of a real property right (the performance of the contract) is considered a separate legal transaction from the contract itself, which only creates personal obligations. Various laws govern how certain common forms of purchase contracts are to be concluded and executed.  These laws provide a gloss (and in some cases a substantial change) to the common law of sale discussed so far..