, PLEASE USE THIS DOCUMENT AS A GUIDE TO ANSWER YOUR ASSIGNMENT
Please also note that the author of this document will not be responsible for any plagiarism you
commit.
Introduction
Contracts form the foundation of legal agreements in commercial transactions, and their validity
often hinges on whether the necessary elements of offer and acceptance have been properly executed.
This essay examines whether a binding contract was formed between Jack and Jill concerning the
sale of Jack's Yamaha speedboat. Specifically, it analyzes the validity of Jack's acceptance of Jill’s
offer, with a focus on the prescribed mode of acceptance and the timing of its communication.
Excluding reliance on the direct reliance theory and the iustus error doctrine, the analysis draws on
relevant legal principles, authorities, and case law, including Pillay v Shaik and Terry and Another v
Solfafa and Others.
Identification of the Legal Problem
The primary issue is whether Jack's actions constituted a valid acceptance of Jill’s offer, given that
he informed her of his acceptance only after the offer’s expiry date. Central to this issue is the legal
requirement for valid acceptance and the implications of a prescribed mode of acceptance,
particularly regarding the need for timely communication.
Relevant Law and Authorities
1. Requirements for a Valid Acceptance:
For an acceptance to be valid, it must be unconditional, made by the intended offeree, and
reflect a conscious response to the offer. In this case, Jack’s acceptance met these basic criteria.
2. Mode of Acceptance:
The offeror, as dominus, has the right to prescribe the method of acceptance. Jill’s offer
specified that the contract would be concluded upon the seller’s (Jack’s) signature.
The textbook notes that when a mode of acceptance is prescribed, no alternative form will
suffice unless expressly or tacitly allowed by the offeror.
Pillay v Shaik and Terry and Another v Solfafa and Others emphasize the enforceability of
prescribed methods of acceptance. In Terry, the court inferred that when an offer is structured
as a written contract signed by the offeror, the required mode of acceptance is the offeree’s
signature.
3. Communication of Acceptance:
Under the general rule of the information theory, acceptance must be communicated to the
offeror to form a contract.
Exceptions arise when the offeror waives the need for notification or prescribes a method of
acceptance that does not require communication.
In Withok Small Farms (Pty) Ltd v Amber Sunrise Properties, the court affirmed that when
acceptance is tied to signature, the time and place of contract conclusion are determined by the
signature, irrespective of external factors like notification.
