100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
Previously searched by you
Previously searched by you
logo
Summary CONTRACT: Semester 2 cases CA$7.77   Add to cart
Quickly navigate to
Preview
  2.  
  3. University Of Cape Town (UCT)
  4.  
  5. Contract Law (PVL3005W)

Summary

Summary CONTRACT: Semester 2 cases
 9 views  0 purchase
  • Course
  • Contract Law (PVL3005W)
  • Institution
  • University Of Cape Town (UCT)

all prescribed semester 2 cases (stating the fact, issue, outcome and extra remarks as well as what the textbook contains on the cases) Sweet v Ragerguhara 1978 Singh v McCarthy Retail Ltd 2000 Datacolor International v Intamarket 2001 Culverwell v Brown 1990 Benson v SA Mutual Life Assuranc...

[Show more]

Preview 2 out of 26  pages

Document information

  • October 22, 2023
  • 26
  • 2023/2024
  • Summary

Subjects

  • contract law

Written for

  • University of Cape Town (UCT)
  • Contract Law (PVL3005W)
All documents for this subject (6)

Seller

avatar-seller
LawGuru

Reviews received

Content preview

Kaya Borkowski



Contract Law
Semester 2 Cases


1. Sweet v Ragerguhara 1978
2. Singh v McCarthy Retail Ltd 2000
3. Datacolor International v Intamarket 2001
4. Culverwell v Brown 1990
5. Benson v SA Mutual Life Assurance Society 1986
6. ISEP Structural Engineering v Inland Exploration 1981
7. Basson v Hanna 2017
8. BK Tooling v Scope Precision Engineering 1979
9. Thoroughbred Breeders Association v Price Waterhouse Cooper 2001
10. Paulsen v Slip Knot Investments 2015
11. Tuckers Land v Hovis 1980
12. SAFCOL v York Timbers 2005
13. Stocks & Stocks v TJ Daly 1979
14. Wilkens v Voges 1994
15. Mercurius Motors v Lopez 2008
16. Freddy Hirsch Group v Chickenland 2011
17. Beadica v Trustees 2020
18. Johnston v Leal 1980
19. Lagoon Investments Capitec Bank Holdings Ltd v Coral Lagoon Investments
2022 (Prof said we will not be asked this case)




Postivie Malperformance

Sweet v Ragerguhara
1978

Relevant for: positive malperformance and mora debitoris

Facts
- Sweet bought a property from Ragerguhara.
- The contract of sale stipulated that "vacant occupation" of the property will be given by a
certain date
- When this date arrived, two families were still unlawfully residing on the property.
- Sweet then sent a letter cancelling the contract



Distribution of this document is illegal

, Kaya Borkowski



- Ragerguhara denied that Sweet had the right to cancel the contract
- Sweet then sent Ragerguhara a notice of rescission, which Ragerguhara denied was
valid

Issue
- What is the effect of the notice of rescission?
- What type of breach was it?

Outcome
- The breach is positive malperformance
- insufficient evidence had been led by both of the parties to enable the court to decide
whether Ragerguhara's breach was a material breach

- the notice of recission was not legally valid because this was clearly a case of defective
performance (and not mora) and as such, the letter of rescission could not have been
necessary, and second, it was probably not clear and unequivocal, as in the letter Sweet
stated that the contract had been cancelled anyway

- 'a notice of rescission is of no legal consequence unless it relates to the failure to
perform a "vital" or "important" term of a contract timeously'
- defective performance (positive malperformance) is 'timeous performance not in
accordance with the terms of the agreement’
- In the case of a debtor performing defectively, the creditor has a right to cancel
immediately, providing the defective performance is with regard to a material term of the
contract
- If, however, the defective performance is not materially defective, no right to cancel
exists
- When is a letter of recission valid? When it is clear and unequivocal. In other words, it
must clearlyindicate to the debtor that the creditor is still willing to honour the contract if
the debtor does


Singh v McCarthy Retail Ltd
2000


Facts
- The parties signed a written contract for the appellant to purchase a specific Mercedes
model from the respondent. The seller conducted business in Pinetown.
- As the seller did not have the necessary vehicle in stock, they agreed to purchase it from
a dealer in King William's Town and deliver it to the buyer in Durban at the seller's
expense.
- Delivery was timely and the appellant fulfilled their commitment.



Distribution of this document is illegal

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

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

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

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 LawGuru. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for CA$7.77. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

79271 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now

Start selling
CA$7.77
  • (0)
  Add to cart