PIL Seeking ‘Authoritative Interpretation’ of Section 66 PMLA Refused by Delhi High Court  ||  All. HC: Can’t Declare Transaction Benami on Contractor’s Statement Without Relevant Material  ||  Del. HC: Denying ITC to Taxpayers One of the Outcomes of GST Registration Cancell. with Retrospect  ||  Cal HC: Penalty Amount on Higher Value than Invoice Value Can’t be Computed by GST Dep. w/o Evidence  ||  All. HC: Candidates with Criminal Background Will Pose Severe Threat to Democracy if Elected  ||  All. HC: It’s an Obligation of Bank Officials to Fully Co-operate in Criminal Investigations  ||  SC: Prima Facie Case Made Out from Allegations in Complaint Sufficient to Summon Accused  ||  Supreme Court Explains: Debt Becoming Financial & Operational Debt  ||  P&H HC: Model Code of Conduct Can’t Stand in Way of Execution of Judicial Order  ||  Chh. HC: Can’t Build Matrimonial Home With Bricks & Stones, Love & Respect Between Spouses Required    

KeyHealth Medical Scheme vs. Glopin (Pty) - (28 Oct 2022)

Agreement could be terminated by either party in terms of the legislation

Contract

The issue in the appeal was whether the Appellant, KeyHealth Medical Scheme (KeyHealth), was entitled to revoke the agreement it had with the Respondent, Glopin (Pty) Ltd. (Glopin), on the basis that it constituted a mandate revocable at any time by KeyHealth.

KeyHealth contended that the agreement between the parties amounted to a contract of mandate and, as a result, either party was free to revoke it at any time. Therefore, it was entitled to revoke Glopin’s mandate as it did on 31 March 2017. To advance this argument, KeyHealth contended that, the services provided for in the Service Level Agreement (SLA) were provided on KeyHealth’s behalf and not on behalf of the members of the medical scheme per se.

KeyHealth failed to show that the mandate it contended for was the kind of mandatary’s authority in respect of which the irrevocability clause could not apply. KeyHealth seemed to base its argument purely on the use of the word ‘authority’ in the agreement and ignored other clauses, which gave rise to the context of the use of the expression. By KeyHealth’s own admission, and as stated in the agreement, Glopin was not an empowered agent. It did not have authority to conclude juristic acts on KeyHealth’s behalf.

Even assuming that a contract of mandate existed, KeyHealth’s predecessor, Munimed, had bound itself, in terms of clause 4, to the duration of the agreement and how it would have been terminated. In terms of clause 4, the parties agreed that the agreement would continue for the period of Glopin’s accreditation by the Council for Medical Schemes and it could be terminated by either party in terms of the legislation. The agreement could also be automatically terminated if any of the events stipulated therein occurred. None of the events stipulated in clause 4 for triggering the termination of the agreement had taken place. KeyHealth was, therefore, not permitted to revoke the contract at will.

Tags : AGREEMENT   REVOCATION   PERMISSION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved