, 1. CRAWLEY REX........................................................................................................................266
2. Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [1893] Q.B. 256 (C.A.).........................................................266
3. Bloom v The American Swiss Watch Company......................................................................266
PROBLEM TYPES QUESTION: OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE.................................................................267
Question: ABSENCE OF CONSENSUS..............................................................................................269
Question: MISREPRESENTATION...................................................................................................271
Question: STUDY UNIT 13: DURESS...................................................................................................273
Question: Study Unit 14 UNDUE INFLUENCE.....................................................................................275
STUDY UNIT 15: COMMERCIAL BRIBERY............................................................................................276
Question: STUDY UNIT 17 and 18 : LEGALITY: ILLEGAL CONTRACTS THAT ARE VOID.........................276
STUDY UNIT 19: FORMALITIES...........................................................................................................277
Question STUDY UNIT 20: POSSIBILITY..............................................................................................278
STUDY UNIT 23: TERMS.....................................................................................................................279
3. Ticket cases....................................................................................................................................280
STUDY UNIT 24: INTERPRETATION.....................................................................................................281
STUDY UNIT 25-39: BREACH AND REMEDIES FOR BREACH................................................................281
SU 27: REPUDIATION.........................................................................................................................284
SU 28: PREVENTION OF PERFORMANCE............................................................................................284
SU 29: REMEDIES ON THE GROUND OF BREACH OF CONTRACT.......................................................285
SU 30: THE EXCEPTIO NON ADIMPLETI CONTRACTUS.......................................................................285
SU 31: RESCISSION (CANCEL).............................................................................................................285
SU 32: DAMAGES...............................................................................................................................285
SU 33: PENALTY CLAUSES...................................................................................................................304
SU 34: THE EXCEPTIO DOLI................................................................................................................305
SU 35: THE TRANSFER OF CLAIMS: CESSION......................................................................................305
SU 36, 37 & 38:..................................................................................................................................306
12 WAYS OF TERMINATING YOUR OBLIGATIONS:..........................................................................306
SU 36: THE TERMINATION OF OBLIGATIONS......................................................................................306
SU 37: THE TERMINATION OF OBLIGATIONS......................................................................................307
SU 38: THE TERMINATION OF OBLIGATIONS......................................................................................307
PVL3702_201_2019 – Second Semester............................................................................................311
ASSIGNMENT 02 – FIRST SEMESTER: UNIQUE NUMBER: 787088......................................................314
PVL3702_ Assignment 694865..........................................................................................................317
PVL3702_Oct 2016............................................................................................................................318
,PVL3702_May 2017...........................................................................................................................330
PVL3702_Nov 2017............................................................................................................................340
PVL3702_May 2018...........................................................................................................................350
PROPERTY CASES:..............................................................................................................................359
REAL RIGHTS v CREDITORS RIGHTS................................................................................................359
OWNERSHIP AND LIMITATIONS ON OWNERSHIP...........................................................................359
Konstanz Property (Pty} Ltd:..........................................................................................................361
Info Plus:........................................................................................................................................361
Telkom SA Ltd v Xsinet (Pty) Ltd.....................................................................................................362
SERVITUDES: LIMITED REAL RIGHTS..............................................................................................362
Grant v Stonestreet....................................................................................................................362
Willoughby’s Consolidated........................................................................................................363
LIMITED REAL RIGHTS:...................................................................................................................363
REAL SECURITY...........................................................................................................................363
Mapenduka v Ashington............................................................................................................363
Qsry...........................................................................................................................................364
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY........................................................................364
FNB v COMMISSIONER, SARS:....................................................................................................364
PVL3702 – 201 – 2015
Question
John, a racehorse owner, advertises for sale the horse Fire for R1.5 million. In the advertisement it is
stated that Fire is an offspring of the legendary July winner, Lightning. Peter is a horse breeder who
specifically wishes to introduce the bloodline of Lightning into his stud. He agrees orally with John to
buy Fire for R1.5 million. Later, in order to meet the requirements of the horse breeders’ association,
John has a written contract drawn up which Peter signs without reading. The contract makes no
mention of Fire's ancestry, but does contain a clause exempting John from liability for any
representations made during negotiations or in the contract. Peter's attention is not drawn to these
facts. A month later Peter finds out that Fire is in fact not an offspring of Lightning, although at the
time of the conclusion of the contract John genuinely and without any fault on his part believed that
to be the case. Advise Peter on whether the contract of sale is valid. Substantiate your advice and
refer to relevant case law. Apply the subjective approach of the courts in answering this question. Do
not apply the Consumer Protection Act to this question. (10)
, Answer
Identifying the problem
The subjective approach of the courts involves the application of the will theory as qualified by
estoppel or quasi-mutual assent (Hutchison and Pretorius (eds) The law of Contract in South Africa
Oxford University Press Southern Africa 2012 90-97). A successful reliance on estoppel can only give
rise to a ‘fictional’ (thus not valid) contract (Hutchison and Pretorius Contract 94) and will thus not be
discussed.
The facts seemingly indicate that John and Peter have not reached consensus based on the will
theory. If that is the case, it is necessary to determine if Peter may be held bound to a contract with
John, based on the reliance theory.
Discussing the relevant law applicable to the problem AND applying the law to the facts of the
problem
The subjective approach implies that we first have to determine whether agreement between the
parties exists as required in terms of the will theory or whether a party acted under a material
mistake. Consensus has three elements (Hutchison and Pretorius Contract 14 85): the parties must
seriously intend to contract, be of one mind as to the material aspects of the proposed agreement
(the terms and the identity of the parties to it), and be conscious of the fact that their minds have
met.
In the present case the innocent misrepresentation regarding Fire’s lineage is irrelevant because it
caused a non-material mistake: a mistake regarding a characteristic (the lineage) of the thing sold,
Fire (an error in substantia). The parties wanted to buy and sell the same horse, Fire. See Eiselen GTS
et al Law of contract Only study guide for 3702 Unisa 2012 40: Hutchison and Pretorius Contract 88-
89.
The parties were, however, not in agreement as to the consequences they wished to create: Peter
did not know that there was a clause in the contract he signed exempting John from liability for any
representations made during negotiations or in the contract, but John knew that the sale included an
exemption clause. Peter made a mistake as to the obligations the parties wished to create which
excludes consensus between the parties (Hutchison and Pretorius Contract 86). No contract can thus
arise on the basis of the will theory.
The facts of our problem are very similar to that in Du Toit v Atkinson's Motors Bpk 1985 (2) SA 889
(A) where the appellant signed an agreement without reading it which contained a term excluding
the respondent’s liability for misrepresentation. The court held that the mistake regarding the
exemption clause was material.
This type of mistake also occurred in other cases. In Allen v Sixteen Stirling Investments (Pty) Ltd
1974 (4) SA 164 (D) the plaintiff believed that he was purchasing the erf shown to him by the seller's
agent, while the written contract that he signed indicated the correct erf which was a completely
different property. His mistake related to performance and was material. In Sonap Petroleum (SA)
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller bmm7203. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $2.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
