Other
Pvl3702 Assignment 01 Memorandum 2024
- Institution
- University Of South Africa (Unisa)
ANSWERS provided and declaration including references
[Show more]
Content preview
PVL3701 ASSIGNMENT 1 MEMORANDUM 2024DATE: 12 MARCH 2024
MODULE CODE: PVL3702
ALL ANSWERS PROVIDED
In Gloria's situation, she viewed a specific cluster home next to the guardhouse at the
entrance of the complex and developed an emotional attachment to it. Subsequently,
she signed an offer to purchase document presented by the estate agent, Sandy, under
the impression that she was buying the cluster home she viewed and loved. However, it
later emerged that the property described in the signed document was a different cluster
home located at the back of the complex.
In applying the principles of the will theory and iustus error doctrine to the scenario
provided, the case law of Maresky v Morkel 1994 (1) SA 249 (C) and Pillay v Shaik
2009 (4) SA 74 (SCA) can provide guidance on whether Gloria concluded a legally
binding contract with Jack for the cluster home described in the signed document.
In Maresky v Morkel, the court considered a situation where the seller mistakenly
believed he was selling a specific property, while the buyer mistakenly believed he was
purchasing a different property. The court held that there was no meeting of the minds
as the parties were mistaken as to the identity of the subject matter of the contract.
Therefore, no valid contract was formed. This case illustrates the importance of
consensus ad idem in contract formation.
Similarly, in Pillay v Shaik, the court emphasized the importance of consensus ad idem
and reiterated that for a contract to be valid, there must be a meeting of the minds
between the parties. If there is a mistake as to the identity of the subject matter of the
contract, there is no consensus ad idem, and therefore no valid contract.
Applying these principles to Gloria's situation, it is evident that she believed she was
signing for a specific cluster home - the one next to the guardhouse at the entrance of
the complex. However, the property described in the signed document is different from
the one she viewed and fell in love with. This discrepancy indicates a clear mistake as
to the identity of the subject matter of the contract.
Therefore, based on the case law of Maresky v Morkel and Pillay v Shaik, it can be
argued that Gloria did not conclude a legally binding contract with Jack for the cluster
home described in the signed document. The mistake made by Gloria, which is
reasonable and justifiable, indicates a lack of consensus ad idem, and as a result, no
valid contract was formed.
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 EFT, 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 this summary from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller nancylonake. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy this summary for R50,00. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
72042 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy summaries for 14 years now