Case no 324/84. MC
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (APPELLATE DIVISION)
In the matter between:
PRITCHARD PROPERTIES (PROPRIETARY) LIMITED Appellant
and
BASIL KOULIS	Respondent
Coram: JANSEN, KOTZé, TRENGOVE, BOSHOFF JJA et CILLIé AJA.
Heard: 11 November 1985. Delivered: 2 December 1985.
JUDGMENT
JANSEN JA :-
I have had the advantage of reading the
judgments / 	

2. judgments of KOTZé JA, BOSHOFF JA and CILLIé AJA.
I am in respectful agreement with the result arrived
at by KOTZé JA but for different reasons. They are 
the following.
In my respectful view the rules relating to the role of "surrounding circumstances" in interpreting a contract afford no real guidance to the solution of the present problem. It is therefore in the present case not only unnecessary to attempt to state such rules but also undesirable to do so without a full analysis of the relevant cases and the considerations involved. Here the word-with-deletion is not a "surrounding" circumstance but part and parcel of the document, plain to see for any reader. As every character on the
document / 	

3. document must be read and integrated with the others, so also the line through the visible word "latter", together constituting a compound character, must be considered in arriving at the meaning of the document. I am in full agreement with the court a quo that "to ignore it would be to adopt an ostrich-like attitude" (1984 (4) SA 327(W) at the bottom of p 333-334) and also that if it is looked at, the meaning that emerges from the document as a whole is that found by the court a quo (at p 330 A-F). This meaning is substantially that propounded by KOTZé JA (without reference, however, to the deletion of the word "latter").
I may only add that in my view the obiter view expressed by JAMES JP in Valdave Investments (Pty) Ltd v
Total / 	

4. Total SA (Pty) Ltd van Another 1977(2) SA 94(D)
should be followed, and that in respect of the two conflicting lines of cases mentioned by the court a quo, the better view is to be found in that mentioned by the court a quo under "(iv)" at the bottom of p 331-332 E.
I would therefore dismiss the appeal with costs.
E.L. JANSEN JA.