IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT
JOHANNESBURG
       		   CASE NO: 2009/19042
REPORTABLE
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES

               		    

In the matter between:
MERCHANT COMMERCIAL FINANCE (PTY) LTD.................................Plaintiff
and 
KATANA FOODS CC.......................................................................Defendant
JUDGMENT

SATCHWELL  J
INTRODUCTION

1.	Plaintiff was the victim of a scam perpetrated  by  its own client,   Black Ginger 81 (Pty) Ltd, (“Black Ginger”),  working in conjunction with  a member and employee of  defendant CC (“Nahman”).

2.	Plaintiff provides factoring services for a number of clients in terms whereof  it  opens  an account for the client  after performing  appropriate credit checks on both client and its  purchasers.   Such account is then used by the client to obtain advance  payment for goods sold and delivered by the client prior to payment being  made  and received by the ultimate  purchaser.   In the present case, Black Ginger was one such client and Defendant was one such purchaser.  Over a period of several months, Black Ginger purported to have  sold and delivered goods to defendant;   Black Ginger  presented  invoices to plaintiff;  plaintiff checked with defendant and was assured by  it’s “buying officer”, “sales representative  and member”, Nahman,  that  the goods had been delivered and received;   plaintiff then  made advance payment to Black Ginger.  

3.	During May 2006,  plaintiff and Black Ginger  concluded  a  factoring agreement  which provided for Black Ginger to sell  all Black Ginger’s claims “in respect of transactions entered into by Black Ginger for the sale of goods and/or the provision of services to any customer in the ordinary course of Black Ginger’s business”.  Plaintiff paid to Black Ginger the invoice price,  less certain fees and discounts  and thereafter  “Black Ginger’s debtors would pay plaintiff directly in respect of any receivable so ceded to plaintiff in terms of the factoring agreement”.   Defendant was  purportedly one such “customer” of Black Ginger and was  “formally notified in writing of the  existence of the factoring agreement between plaintiff and Black Ginger  and that all debts owing by defendant to Black Ginger had been ceded to plaintiff”.     

4.	However, in the course of an application for the  liquidation of defendant  it  was conceded that  Black Ginger had never sold or delivered any goods to defendant,  that Nahman was party to a  deception of plaintiff in terms whereof Nahman  misrepresented to plaintiff that goods had been received thereby causing payments to be made by plaintiff to Black Ginger:

“[Defendant] had a longstanding business relationship with Nurasiaha.	 ….business with Nurasiaha was conducted between Black Ginger and the [defendant]…   Nahman is not only a sales representative in the employ of the [defendant] but a member of the [defendant] holding a minority member’s interest in the [defendant].
“During or about April 2006, Nursiash, on behalf of Black Ginger, approached Nahman and suggested to him that:	
“Black Ginger would invoice the [defendant] for goods and which would not be delivered to the [defendant]. After the invoice aforesaid had been raised, the [defendant] would be issued with a credit note to the value of the invoice so raised by Black Ginger on the [defendant].
“During the period September 2006 to May 2007 the arrangement between Black Ginger and Nahman was conducted on the same basis in that Black Ginger would invoice the [defendant] with goods allegedly delivered to it and whereafter the [defendant] would be issued with a credit note by Black Ginger to the same value….
“As is evident from what is stated herein, no goods as reflected in [the] annexures] were ever sold and delivered by Black Ginger to the [defendant]…”  

5.	As I understand the scam,   Black Ginger and Nahman had conspired to  have Black Ginger  offer fake invoices to plaintiff,  Nahman would pretend that  goods had been sold and delivered,  plaintiff would make payment to Black Ginger,   the same monies would then be recirculated from Black Ginger but purporting to come from defendant. The  ultimate    reward hoped to be reaped by this  scam  would presumably  be advance payments by plaintiff  to Black Ginger which would not be recirculated back to plaintiff. 
CHECKING PROCEDURES 

6.	The procedures followed and the documentation created at plaintiff were established in evidence  by the credit manager,  Gail Bester  (“Bester”) and   verification clerks, Caron Brink  (“Brink”) and  Wendy van Wyk  (“Van Wyk”).

7.	Black Ginger made application, credit checks were performed, an account was opened and a credit   limit was approved and the factoring agreement concluded.   The proposed debtor, defendant was informed and advised all payments were to be paid directly to plaintiff.      As and when Black Ginger would submit an invoice for factoring then “each and every invoice would be verified… a check would be done with the customer [defendant] that the goods were delivered”.    The invoice and the offer contained therein would not be accepted until such time as the  underlying transaction had been checked with the customer.   On receipt of the invoice, Brink or Van Wyk, would telephone Nahman and confirm that  defendant “had received the goods in good order,  not on consignment and that they knew they were to pay [plaintiff]”.  Once the  verification had been telephonically  concluded with  Nahman, the terms of the  transaction were also confirmed in writing with defendant. 

8.	Ten such transactions over a period of some eleven months were dealt with in evidence  to show that plaintiff had been led to believe that   goods had been received in good order by defendant from Black Ginger,  that Black Ginger had  been paid out  and that plaintiff  had, in turn,  received payment from defendant.
THE ALTERNATIVE CLAIM 
	
	Invoices 105156, 105331, 105332
9.	Plaintiff’s alternative claim avers that Nahman  had falsely represented  to plaintiff over the period 19 June 2006 to 31 May 2007 that “Black Ginger had in the normal course of its business sold and delivered goods on credit to defendant”.    As a result of such misrepresentations,  plaintiff was “induced to purchase  the fictitious claims as set out in three invoices, to take cession of these fictitious claims and to pay Black Ginger the amount of R 404,557,26 in respect thereof..”

10.	Three  particular transactions  were purportedly reflected on invoices 105156, 105331 and 105332 ,  Black Ginger approached plaintiff for  early  or advance payment based on the representation that  it, and therefore plaintiff,  was entitled  to and expected to receive payment from defendant  in respect of certain invoices.  

11.	Invoice 105156 dated 12th April was issued by Black Ginger to defendant.  The invoice reflects the usual advice that the account had been ceded to plaintiff.  The invoice reflects thereon that the goods were received by defendant in good order on 30th April and signed by Nahman.   Records indicate that,  on 3rd May,  Brink spoke to Nahman who “confd all goods recvd in order on inv 105156”.   That verbal advice from Nahman was confirmed in the usual letter sent by plaintiff.     

12.	Invoices 105331 and 105332 were  both dated 24th May from Black Ginger to defendant.  The invoices reflect the usual advice that the account had been ceded to plaintiff.  The invoices reflect thereon that the goods were received by defendant in good order on  29th May  and signed by Nahman.  A telephone call of 31st May was made by Van Wyk and Nahman returned her call on that day to “conf gds  del on above invs”.  

13.	In the case of all three of these invoices, the Schedule of Invoices’  indicates that each invoice  was ‘offered’ by defendant to plaintiff with the following  guarantee – “in relation to the said invoices the warranties contained in the Factoring Agreement have been complied  with  and in particular the goods and/or services have been delivered and/or performed prior to the data hereof hereof and all invoices bear the notice of cession”.     Each one of these  schedule records that  it has been checked and ‘accepted’ by plaintiff. 

Authorisation prior to verification

14.	In the course of cross-examination pertaining to the client statements,  it emerged that Preggy ( who was the conduit for Black Ginger) had made a request for early payouts.  These  requests  were  not made to Bester and were apparently taken to the directors. It appeared that the financial manager, Craig Nain,  and/or  the managing director, had authorized payment in respect of invoice 105156.  Further, it appeared that   the financial manager and/or the managing director had authorised payment in respect of invoices 105331 and 105332.

15.	The factoring schedule for the week  of 2nd May indicates that the value of this  invoice  was  processed and effectively ‘credited’ to Black Ginger’s account.  On the strength of this  schedule  a  payout was  made to Black Ginger in respect of this invoice – one payment of  R 650 000 included invoice 105156.     The factoring schedule  for the  week of 6th June indicate that the values of these two invoices were processed and effectively ‘credited’ to Black Ginger’s account.  On the strength of these  schedules payouts were made to Black Ginger in respect of these invoices -  one payment of  R 186 000  included  invoice  105331 and  one payment of  R 165 000  included invoice 105332.    

16.	It was pointed out by counsel for defendant that these three payments were each authorized before the required and customary  verification was performed by the verification clerks.  In the case of invoice 105156 the payment on page 139 was authorized on 2nd May     whereas the verification was only performed by Brink on 3rd  May. In the case of invoices 105331 and 105332 the payment on page 147 was authorized  on 25th May whereas the verification was only performed by Van Wyk on  31st May.

17.	In other words, it appears that Black Ginger made an approach to defendant’s management/directors requesting advances and being granted such advances against certain schedules prior to any check being performed by the verification clerks that deliveries had been made or received by defendant.     This state of affairs was not in dispute.   

‘Course of Conduct’ 

18.	Counsel for plaintiff argued that the court should uphold plaintiff’s alternative claim based on the ‘course of conduct’   established and developed by both Black Ginger and defendant over a period of time which had “lulled plaintiff into a sense of false security”.   

19.	 I queried in argument that the verification process appeared to be entirely irrelevant to these three payments and that, in other words, Nahman had had no opportuntity to make any misrepresentations  in respect of these invoices and these payments.   Counsel submitted that there had been a series of misrepresentations  made over time by both Black Ginger and Nahman which  induced plaintiff to make these payouts  to which Black Ginger was certainly never entitled.   Payment was made before verification simply because plaintiff was “under the impression” that Black Ginger and defendant were acting “in the ordinary course of business”.

20.	I accept that Black Ginger and Nahman, sales representative and a member of defendant, had created  a scam – there was a series of misrepresentations which were made intentionally and with knowledge of their untruth and that such misrepresentations were made in order to induce plaintiff to make a series of payments in the period preceding  these three invoices.

21.	However,  in the case of these three invoices Nahman made no misrepresentations prior to payment.  He did so after payment.  It was not his specific misrepresentations on these particular dates which induced the payments.    It was the assessment made by plaintiff’s financial manager and managing director that  advance payments could be made to Black Ginger before receiving any information as to purported  receipt of delivery by Nahman.    

22.	The difficulty with this alternative claim is that I have not heard any evidence from those who were involved in the decision to make the advance payments.     I do not know what was said by Preggy on behalf of Black Ginger (if indeed, it was Preggy who made the request for special treatment)  to the decision-makers – whether promises were made, pleas advanced, undertakings given.   I do not know who made the decisions.    I do not know who held discussions,   what documents were considered,  what factors influenced the decision-makers to exercise their discretion in a particular manner.      I have not heard a decision-maker aver that he or she was “lulled into a sense of false security”.   I do not know what weight was given to the fact that Black Ginger was over it’s credit limit on one occasion.   I do not know if such advances are frequently or infrequently made and the basis upon which such advances are granted.  

23.	I can speculate that  the financial records all indicate that  Black Ginger and  defendant  had created a “façade of  ordinary business” as submitted by plaintiff’s counsel  and that this  played a part in the decision-makers, whether financial manager or managing director or both,  granting a favourable answer on apparently three occasions to the special request by  Preggy  (if it was he) on behalf of  Black Ginger.   The probabilities certainly  suggest this to be the case. 

24.	  However,  it is clear that the decisions to make the payments were not in the ‘ordinary course of business’.  The payments were authorized prior to verifications being done as required and the payments were made earlier than would normally have been the case.  These were special payments presumably made as a result of a special request and whatever considerations  impacted upon the minds of those who made the decisions to respond favourably and out of the ordinary to the special requests are unknown to me.
CONCLUSION

25.	I cannot find that  Nahman   induced defendant to make the payments on these three  occasions.   He made no misrepresentations prior to authorization and payment.  He certainly made a series of misrepresentations in respect of other transactions.  But there  is no evidence before me   of the role played by those misrepresentations  in the decisions made  by management of plaintiff.   They did not give evidence.  They are the only persons who know whether or not Nahman’s earlier misrepresentations created a façade of commercial endeavor,  business probity and  financial reliability which  induced the directors who made decisions so to do.

26.	I have not found against plaintiff in this matter.  I am finding that  plaintiff has failed to discharge the onus  resting upon it.   Accordingly,  I am granting absolution from the instance. 

27.	Defendants alternative plea was a denial that Nahman “had defendants authority to make such representation on behalf of defendant or that he did so in the course and scope of his employment with defendant.” . By reason of my  finding on the main issue, I  do not need to determine defendant’s liability (if any) for Nahman’s misrepresentations. 

28.	In the result, an order is made as follows:

a.	Absolution from the instance is granted. 
b.	Plaintiff is to pay defendant’s costs including the wasted costs of the earlier postponement.

DATED AT JOHANNESBURG ON THIS DAY THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2013.

_______________
K. SATCHWELL

Counsel for Plaintiff: Adv. F. Van Zyl SC 
Counsel for the Defendant: Adv. H. A. Van der Merwe
Attorneys for Plaintiff: Werksmans Attorneys 
Attorneys for Defendant: Jeff Donenber & Co
Date of hearing: 31st November  2013
Date of Judgment: 28th  November 2013