What did the court in Administrator, Natal v Edouard 1990 (3) SA 581 (A) state?

1.

The court held that physical inconvenience caused by a breach of contract is actionable.

2.

The court held that a claim for compensation for pain and suffering cannot merely be based on breach of contract and, furthermore, there is no common-law authority which generally allows damages for any non-patrimonial loss caused by a breach of contract.

3.

The court appeared to favour a total rejection of punitive damages in private and constitutional matters.

4.

The court stated that in our law a damages award does not serve to punish for the act of defamation. It aims to serve as compensation, vindicating the victim's dignity, reputation and integrity.