PVL3701 ASSIGNMENT 1 MEMORANDUM 2024
DATE: 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.
DATE: 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.
