LTC Harms, from his leading book “Amlers Precedents of Pleadings,” can best answer your question:Originally Posted by Mamokete
Look at the example:Pleadings and love letters have much in common: both are personal and reflect somewhat of the author’s personality. Precedents in either instance are dangerous because they tend to be inapplicable to the facts under consideration. Each sets out and explains the position of the parties involved. If too much or too little is said, problems arise. They provide embarrassing evidence of the original perceptions and intentions of the author and never please successors in title.
LTC Harms, Pretoria. February 2015
To add, a plea is a brief, clear, concise answer to each individual paragraph of allegation found in either the simple summons or the combined summons.
Suppose the combined summons includes the following as the first four paragraphs.
1.
The Plaintiff is ABC bank, a bank registered in terms of the laws of South Africa
2.
The Defendant is Jack Joap Soap supply, a Close Corporation, duly registered in terms of the laws of the Republic of South Africa which is situated at Pretoria
3.
On or about October 2020, the parties entered into a written agreement for a specialized service, for the supply of liquid soap
4.
The Plaintiff was represented by Mr D and the Defendant was represented by Mr H.
5. On or about November 2020, the defendant breached the contract by no supplying the soap.
This is how it must be answered in practice in the plea
AD PARAGRAPH 1 THEREOF
The defendant admits the contents of this paragraph.
AD PARAGRAPH 2 THEREOF
The defendant admits the contents of this paragraph
AD PARAGRAPH 3 THEREOF
The defendant admits the contents of the of this paragraph
AD PARAGRAPH 4 THEREOF
The defendant denies the contents of this paragraph, as if specifically traversed and puts the plaintiff to the proof thereof. The defendant submits, the Plaintiff breached the contract. The Defendant submits as his defence exception non adempleti contractus
Lately I've been quite reluctant to state things as they randomly just appear in mind, lest it be misinterpreted!(will explain later, it has everything to do with the communication model, and a problem with decoding because of different channels of communication.)
See I've identified the exact problem!
Sometimes when you really admire and look up to an author for instance one may employ certain words and phrases that they use. Since this is a apparently a crime equivalent to High Treason. I'll refrain from doing so going forward.
In this instance I have the emails as evidence though!
When I was in my first year of law school I wanted to know literally everything! It was beyond the remit of a first year law student to be familiar with pleadings. I was very familiar because I researched several books on the matter. The complex area of law were not my problem. It was the small things.
I didn't know what " AD," in "AD paragraph 1 meant. So I emailed all my lecturers at the time. They couldn't answer me. This nagged at me for several months.
I got my answer from solving a different riddle. I was into Biblical eschatology as at this time. I knew what BC meant, but couldn't reconcile AD to certain important years as I thought that it meant "After the death of Christ;" I did get my answer. "AD," means "in the year of the Lord."
The implication is that "AD paragraph 1," means in paragraph 1 of the plaintiff's summons.
My lecturers were shocked when I emailed them this explanation! They said inter alia that after years of practicing law they never thought about it!
Reply With Quote
Did you like this article? Share it with your favourite social network.