Class notes
Lecture notes Law of Contract Pvl3702 (Pvl3702) The Law of Contract in South Africa
- Course
- Institution
- Book
Lecture notes Law of Contract Pvl3702 (Pvl3702) The Law of Contract in South Africa
[Show more]
Connected book
Book Title:
Author(s):
- Edition:
- ISBN:
- Edition:
More summaries for
-
Exam (elaborations) Law of Contract Pvl3702 The Law of Contract in South Africa
-
PVL3702 ASSIGNMENT 2 QUIZ MEMO - SEMESTER 2 - 2024 - UNISA - DUE : 3 SEPTEMBER 2024 - UNIQUE NUMBER:- 718830 (DISTINCTION GUARANTEED)
-
PVL3702 ASSIGNMENT 1 MEMO - SEMESTER 2 - 2024 - UNISA - DUE : 19 AUGUST 2024 - UNIQUE NUMBER:- 718515 ( FULLY REFERENCED WITH FOOTNOTES- DISTINCTION GUARANTEED)
Seller
Follow
djsimzadjsimza
Content preview
PVL 3702 Assignment Weighting and PVL3702 Assignment 1 Question and Answer1. Assignment 1 and Assignment 2 Weighting
The document which included the PVL3702 assignment 1 question, already informed you that
one of the assignments will carry a 10% weighting and the other assignment will carry a 90%
weighting towards your year mark. It further stated that it is only after the due dates for the
submission of both assignments have expired, will all students be informed which assignment
carries a 10% weighting and which one carries a 90% weighting towards your year mark.
We now confirm that assignment 1 carries a 10% weighting and assignment 2 carries a 90%
weighting towards your year mark. The year mark carries 20 marks, of which 10% (which
equates to 2 marks) is allocated for assignment 1, and 90% (which equates to 18 marks) is
allocated to assignment 2. If you obtained 100% for assignment 1, keep in mind that the
weighting of this assignment only contributes 10% (which is 2 marks) towards your year mark.
For assignment 1, students who submitted an answer for the assignment 1 question, where
given 100% (which equates to 2 marks towards your year mark). And if you submitted an
incorrect document (for example, where you submitted an assignment for a different module
and not PVL3702), then you were awarded 0%, which in effect means that you lost 2 marks
towards your year mark. Crucially the timeous submission of assignment 1 granted students
examination admission, and also allowed students to prepare for answering problem type
questions.
Please compare your answer to the answer set out below for this assignment question, as you
will not find feedback in your assignments. An online discussion class will also be held to
discuss the answer to this question, and on how to answer problem-type questions.
2. PVL3702 Assignment 1 Question and Answer: 2024 Semester 1
Question
Jack is a property developer who is well known for building residential developments. He
recently built cluster homes in an upmarket suburb in Cape Town. All the cluster homes are built
with the same size and layout, and they only differ with the positioning of each cluster in the
complex. This development is brand new, and Jack appoints Sandy as his estate agent to
market the sale of the cluster homes. Sandy shows Gloria a beautiful cluster home in the
complex, which is next to the guardhouse at the entrance of the complex. Gloria immediately
falls in love with this cluster home and a few days later she signs the offer to purchase
document presented to her by Sandy, who completed all the relevant details on the document
relating to the description of the property. The document is later also signed by Jack as the
seller. However, it subsequently turns out that the cluster home referred to in the signed
, document is not the one that Gloria viewed and fell in love with. The one she signed for and the
one she viewed are different properties. In fact, the cluster home she signed for is right at the
back of the complex, which is not in the best position in the complex. Jack is of the view that a
legally binding contract was concluded with Gloria, in accordance with the written signed
document, for the cluster home described in this document. Gloria approaches you for legal
advice as she thought that she was signing for the cluster home that was next to the
guardhouse at the entrance of the complex. Apply the will theory and the iustus error doctrine
and advise Gloria whether she concluded a legally binding contract with Jack, based on the
written document that they both signed, for the cluster home described in this document.
Discuss fully and refer to case law in your answer. Do not apply the Consumer Protection Act 68
of 2008.
As part of your research for this question you were required to read Maresky v Morkel 1994 (1)
SA 249 (C), and Pillay v Shaik 2009 (4) SA 74 (SCA). You were also required to identify the
relevant section(s) in the prescribed textbook, relating to this question.
Preliminary steps relating to basic research
You were asked to:
(1) read two cases; and
(2) identify the relevant section(s) in the prescribed textbook.
(1) Read two cases
In Maresky v Morkel,1 the purchaser thought he was buying a property at site A, based on an
advertisement he had seen. The seller’s agent failed to do enough to inform the purchaser that
the property he was purchasing was in fact situated at site B. The court held that the
purchaser’s mistake was an error in corpore which was a material mistake, and the court also
held that the purchaser’s error was a iustus error.
In Pillay v Shaik,2 the mode of acceptance prescribed was for the offeree to sign a written
document which was already signed by the offeror. The offeree did not sign the document, so
the mode of acceptance prescribed was not executed by the offeree. However, the court
applied the reliance theory and reasoned that the offeree led the offeror reasonably to believe
that the document was signed, therefore a legally binding contract was concluded. In Pillay, the
direct application of the reliance theory was used to consider if a reasonable belief was instilled
in one party by the other party that a contract was concluded. Similarly, with the iustus error
doctrine, for the contract denier’s mistake to be reasonable, he or she should not have caused a
reasonable belief in the contract assertor that he or she (the contract denier) had consented to
an agreement.
1
1994 (1) SA 249 (C). Hereinafter referred to as “Maresky v Morkel”.
2
2009 (4) SA 74 (SCA). Hereinafter referred to as “Pillay v Shaik”.
2
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 djsimzadjsimza. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $7.63. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
73216 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now