If property is destroyed or stolen, a plaintiff's damages may be assessed:

1. In terms of the market value of the property at the time and place of loss
2. In terms of the reasonable cost of repairs of the property or replacement value of the same
3. In terms of 1 and 2 only
4. In terms of the subjective reasoning of the court

I chose option 3 but everyone else chose option1?

If property is destroyed or stolen, a plaintiff's damage and damages are assessed as the market value[32]of the property at the time[33]and place[34]of the loss.[35]The correct measure of damages is thus not the replacement value of the property[36]at the time of trial.[37]In addition to damages for the value of the property,

Page 425

compensation may also be awarded for further damage.[38]A difficult question is at what point in time there will be total loss of stolen property.[39]

1. [35]SM Goldstein v Gerber1979 (4) SA 930 (A);Central SAR v Geldenhuis Main Reef GM Co Ltd1907

TH 270 at 290-4. Cf alsoBondcrete (Pty) Ltd v City View Investments (Pty) Ltd1969 (1) SA 134 (N) on the proof of value. Cf furtherMonumental Art Co v Kenston Pharmacy (Pty) Ltd1976 (2) SA 111 (C) at 118. SeeHolscher v ABSA Bank1994 (2) SA 667 (T) on the assessment of the value of a stolen cheque.

[36]See, eg, the English caseUctkos v Mazzetta[1956] 1 Lloyd's Rep 209, where it was held that theowner of an unusual type of motor-boat which was destroyed was not entitled to damages to replace suchboat. The court held that he could obtain 'the reasonable cost of another craft which reasonably meets his needs ... and which is reasonably in the same condition.'