PVL3702 EXAM PACK
2026
FOR ASSISTANCE CONTACT
EMAIL:
, lOMoARcPSD|44660598
1. PVL3702-24-S1
2. Welcome Message
3. Assessment 2
QUIZ
Assessment 2
Started on Sunday, 31 March 2024, 3:55 PM
State Finished
Completed on Sunday, 31 March 2024, 5:39 PM
Time taken 1 hour 43 mins
Marks 10.00/10.00
Grade 100.00 out of 100.00
Question1
Correct
Mark 1.00 out of 1.00
Flag question
Question text
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.
Feedback
Your answer is correct.
The correct answer is:
Duress.
Question2
Correct
Mark 1.00 out of 1.00
Flag question
Question text
, lOMoARcPSD|44660598
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 formed bilaterally.
3.
an option contract formed unilaterally.
4.
an option and pre-emption contract formed bilaterally.
5.
a pre-emption contract formed unilaterally.
Feedback
Your answer is correct.
The correct answer is:
an option contract formed bilaterally.
Question3
Correct
Mark 1.00 out of 1.00
Flag question
Question text
Jack is engaged to Jill. Jack has a very strong personality and eventually persuades Jill
to sell and transfer her (Jill’s) house that is worth R900 000 to him (Jack) at a purchase
price of a mere R50 000. After registration of the property in Jack’s name, he breaks off
the engagement. Which option below has the LEAST amount of relevance, in relation to
the cause of action that Jill is likely to rely on in her pursuit to have the transfer of the
house into Jack’s name set aside?
1.
Proof that there was an erosion of Jill’s ability to exercise a free and independent
judgment at the time of contracting with Jack.
2.
Proof that Jack used his superior position to undermine the will of Jill.
3.
Proof that Jack and Jill were in a close relationship at the time of concluding their sale
agreement.
4.
Proof that Jack applied improper pressure on Jill which amounted to intimidation.
5.
Proof that Jill was improperly induced to conclude the contract with Jack.
Feedback
Your answer is correct.
The correct answer is:
Proof that Jack applied improper pressure on Jill which amounted to intimidation.
, lOMoARcPSD|44660598
Question4
Correct
Mark 1.00 out of 1.00
Flag question
Question text
X finds himself stranded in a remote area when his motor vehicle breaks down. There is
no cell phone reception in the area. After five days have passed without seeing anyone,
Y comes along and offers to tow X to the nearest town for the exorbitant fee of R20 000.
X is upset that Y wants to charge such an excessive amount, but X eventually accepts
Y’s offer. X refuses to pay Y R20 000 after being towed to the town. A reasonable fee for
towing would have been R5 000, but Y claims the full amount of R20 000 from X.
Regarding this factual scenario, which statement is CORRECT?
1.
There was no consensus between X and Y to conclude a contract for R20 000.
2.
This is a case dealing with an unconscionable exploitation of an emergency situation.
3.
Based on Y’s conduct, this is a case of commercial bribery.
4.
Y fraudulently misrepresented his exorbitant fee charge of R20 000.
5.
This factual scenario deals with pacta de contrahendo.
Feedback
Your answer is correct.
The correct answer is:
This is a case dealing with an unconscionable exploitation of an emergency situation.
Question5
Correct
Mark 1.00 out of 1.00
Flag question
Question text
X, an organiser of art exhibitions, contracted with Y for an exhibition to be held on 24 to
27 July. These dates were the only dates mentioned during the negotiations. After
having been pressurised by X, Y hurriedly signed the standard form contract without
reading it. The contract contained a clause permitting X to change the dates of the
exhibition unilaterally. X was aware of this clause, but Y was not. Thereafter, X changed
the dates. X had no reason to believe that Y would have signed the contract if he had
known of the term. This is a case of
1.
an error in persona.
2.
a non-material mistake.
2026
FOR ASSISTANCE CONTACT
EMAIL:
, lOMoARcPSD|44660598
1. PVL3702-24-S1
2. Welcome Message
3. Assessment 2
QUIZ
Assessment 2
Started on Sunday, 31 March 2024, 3:55 PM
State Finished
Completed on Sunday, 31 March 2024, 5:39 PM
Time taken 1 hour 43 mins
Marks 10.00/10.00
Grade 100.00 out of 100.00
Question1
Correct
Mark 1.00 out of 1.00
Flag question
Question text
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.
Feedback
Your answer is correct.
The correct answer is:
Duress.
Question2
Correct
Mark 1.00 out of 1.00
Flag question
Question text
, lOMoARcPSD|44660598
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 formed bilaterally.
3.
an option contract formed unilaterally.
4.
an option and pre-emption contract formed bilaterally.
5.
a pre-emption contract formed unilaterally.
Feedback
Your answer is correct.
The correct answer is:
an option contract formed bilaterally.
Question3
Correct
Mark 1.00 out of 1.00
Flag question
Question text
Jack is engaged to Jill. Jack has a very strong personality and eventually persuades Jill
to sell and transfer her (Jill’s) house that is worth R900 000 to him (Jack) at a purchase
price of a mere R50 000. After registration of the property in Jack’s name, he breaks off
the engagement. Which option below has the LEAST amount of relevance, in relation to
the cause of action that Jill is likely to rely on in her pursuit to have the transfer of the
house into Jack’s name set aside?
1.
Proof that there was an erosion of Jill’s ability to exercise a free and independent
judgment at the time of contracting with Jack.
2.
Proof that Jack used his superior position to undermine the will of Jill.
3.
Proof that Jack and Jill were in a close relationship at the time of concluding their sale
agreement.
4.
Proof that Jack applied improper pressure on Jill which amounted to intimidation.
5.
Proof that Jill was improperly induced to conclude the contract with Jack.
Feedback
Your answer is correct.
The correct answer is:
Proof that Jack applied improper pressure on Jill which amounted to intimidation.
, lOMoARcPSD|44660598
Question4
Correct
Mark 1.00 out of 1.00
Flag question
Question text
X finds himself stranded in a remote area when his motor vehicle breaks down. There is
no cell phone reception in the area. After five days have passed without seeing anyone,
Y comes along and offers to tow X to the nearest town for the exorbitant fee of R20 000.
X is upset that Y wants to charge such an excessive amount, but X eventually accepts
Y’s offer. X refuses to pay Y R20 000 after being towed to the town. A reasonable fee for
towing would have been R5 000, but Y claims the full amount of R20 000 from X.
Regarding this factual scenario, which statement is CORRECT?
1.
There was no consensus between X and Y to conclude a contract for R20 000.
2.
This is a case dealing with an unconscionable exploitation of an emergency situation.
3.
Based on Y’s conduct, this is a case of commercial bribery.
4.
Y fraudulently misrepresented his exorbitant fee charge of R20 000.
5.
This factual scenario deals with pacta de contrahendo.
Feedback
Your answer is correct.
The correct answer is:
This is a case dealing with an unconscionable exploitation of an emergency situation.
Question5
Correct
Mark 1.00 out of 1.00
Flag question
Question text
X, an organiser of art exhibitions, contracted with Y for an exhibition to be held on 24 to
27 July. These dates were the only dates mentioned during the negotiations. After
having been pressurised by X, Y hurriedly signed the standard form contract without
reading it. The contract contained a clause permitting X to change the dates of the
exhibition unilaterally. X was aware of this clause, but Y was not. Thereafter, X changed
the dates. X had no reason to believe that Y would have signed the contract if he had
known of the term. This is a case of
1.
an error in persona.
2.
a non-material mistake.
