TLI4801
May June Portfolio
DUE: 26 MAY 2026
, Due date for examination: 26 May 2026
Unique number: 265699
QUESTION 1: CIVIL PRACTICE
Note on Facts: For the purpose of this answer, it is assumed that the purchase and sale
agreement contained a valid eiusdem generis (non-variation) clause and that the
outstanding balance is R1,666,666.66 (the last of six instalments on R10 million). It is
further assumed that the agreement specifically designates Pretoria as the place of
performance and that the written demand is being sent to Zema Plastics’ registered
address in Pretoria North.
(a) Advice and the Letter of Demand
(i) Effectiveness of a Letter (3 marks)
A letter of demand is not merely a formality but a substantive legal requirement in certain
circumstances. However, regarding its effectiveness in this specific scenario:
1.Legal Necessity: While a letter of demand is not always a prerequisite for issuing
summons (unless the agreement specifically makes time of the essence), it serves to
interrupt the running of prescription in terms of Section 15 of the Prescription Act 68 of
1969. Given that the debt is due immediately, a letter is crucial to prevent the debt from
prescribing.
2.Practical Effectiveness: Although the client believes a letter will resolve the matter "fairly
quickly," given that Mr. Zee Man has already given "verbal assurances" which were ignored,
a letter of demand is unlikely to be effective on its own. It serves as a final warning, but you
must advise the client that Zema Plastics will likely ignore the letter as they have ignored
verbal demands. The primary effectiveness of the letter lies in strengthening Maneq’s
position for legal costs (holding Zema liable for legal fees on an attorney-and-client scale if
they fail to pay after demand) and as proof of mora/default.
(ii) Letter of Demand (3 marks)
ATTORNEYS: MANEQ LEGAL
Ref: DCase/Maneq v Zema
Date: [Current Date]
May June Portfolio
DUE: 26 MAY 2026
, Due date for examination: 26 May 2026
Unique number: 265699
QUESTION 1: CIVIL PRACTICE
Note on Facts: For the purpose of this answer, it is assumed that the purchase and sale
agreement contained a valid eiusdem generis (non-variation) clause and that the
outstanding balance is R1,666,666.66 (the last of six instalments on R10 million). It is
further assumed that the agreement specifically designates Pretoria as the place of
performance and that the written demand is being sent to Zema Plastics’ registered
address in Pretoria North.
(a) Advice and the Letter of Demand
(i) Effectiveness of a Letter (3 marks)
A letter of demand is not merely a formality but a substantive legal requirement in certain
circumstances. However, regarding its effectiveness in this specific scenario:
1.Legal Necessity: While a letter of demand is not always a prerequisite for issuing
summons (unless the agreement specifically makes time of the essence), it serves to
interrupt the running of prescription in terms of Section 15 of the Prescription Act 68 of
1969. Given that the debt is due immediately, a letter is crucial to prevent the debt from
prescribing.
2.Practical Effectiveness: Although the client believes a letter will resolve the matter "fairly
quickly," given that Mr. Zee Man has already given "verbal assurances" which were ignored,
a letter of demand is unlikely to be effective on its own. It serves as a final warning, but you
must advise the client that Zema Plastics will likely ignore the letter as they have ignored
verbal demands. The primary effectiveness of the letter lies in strengthening Maneq’s
position for legal costs (holding Zema liable for legal fees on an attorney-and-client scale if
they fail to pay after demand) and as proof of mora/default.
(ii) Letter of Demand (3 marks)
ATTORNEYS: MANEQ LEGAL
Ref: DCase/Maneq v Zema
Date: [Current Date]
