PVL 3702 Assignment Weighting and PVL3702 Assignment 2 Multiple Choice
Questions and Answers: 2024 (Semester 1)
1. PVL3702 2024 Semester 1: Assignment 1 and Assignment 2 Weighting
The document which included the PVL3702 assignment 2 multiple choice questions,
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. Whatever mark you get for assignment
2, it will be converted to a mark out of 18, when your final mark for the PVL3702 module
is calculated after the examination.
Importantly the timeous submission of assignment 1 will grant students examination
admission for the PVL3702 module.
2. PVL 3702 2024 Answers, Semester 1, Assignment 2
There are 10 questions for this assignment. Each answer below carries 1 mark and the
total for this assignment is 10 marks.
Question 1
Gary points a loaded gun at Pete, and orders him to sign a written contract. Gary explains
that the document is for the sale of Pete’s car to him (Gary), at a price of R50 000 which
is far below the market value of the car. Pete, fearing for his life, signs the document.
Which cause of action is Pete most likely to pursue against Gary, to have the contract set
aside?
1 Duress.
2 Undue Influence.
3 Commercial bribery.
4 Material Mistake.
5 Reasonable Mistake.
, Answer
1
Discussion
Pete did not freely conclude the contract, but did so through fear for his life. The elements
for duress appear to be present from the facts presented (for the requirements for duress
see Dale Hutchison & Chris Pretorius (eds) The Law of Contract in South Africa (Oxford
2022) 148-151). Therefore option 1 is correct. With undue influence, the pressure applied
is more subtle compared to duress where threats or intimidation is used (Hutchison and
Pretorius Contract 151-152). Therefore option 2 is incorrect as the pressure applied on
Pete involved a threat and was intimidating. Commercial bribery involves three parties,
and there must be evidence of a bribe ((Hutchison and Pretorius Contract 154), which is
not the case with Gary and Pete. Accordingly, option 3 is incorrect. Options 4 and 5 relate
to the iustus error doctrine (see Hutchison and Pretorius Contract 91-86, 107-111), which
is not applicable here, because there was direct consensus between the parties, but the
consensus was obtained improperly. It follows that option 5 is also incorrect.
Question 2
X has a watch that Y likes. X offers to sell her watch to Y for R5 000, and X and Y agree
that X’s offer will be open for acceptance until 1 June. This is a case of
1 a pre-emption contract formed bilaterally.
2 an option contract bilaterally.
3 an option contract formed unilaterally.
4 an option and pre-emption contract formed bilaterally.
5 a pre-emption contract formed unilaterally.
Answer
2
