ADV TSHOLOGELO TOUTORIALS
Carol, an owner of an exclusive bicycle shop advertised a special limited-
edition bicycle for sale, and invited the public to make offers for the
bicycle. Jane and Portia were among many other people who submitted
written offers for the bicycle. Jane's offer was for R150 000, and Portia's
offer was for R190 000.Although Carol intended to accept Portia's offer,
she erroneously wrote a letter to Jane, wherein she accepted Jane's offer.
Jane believes that an enforceable contract was formed but Carol denies
this. Apply the direct reliance theory orthe iustus error doctrine and
advise if a legally binding contract was concluded between Carol and
Jane. Apply the direct reliance theory and advise if a legally binding
contract was concluded between Carol and Jane. Discuss fully and refer
to case law in your answer. Don’t apply the Consumer Protection Act 68 of
2008. [20]
Carol accidentally sent the letter of acceptance to Jane because it intended to contract with
another party. Thus, the question is whether this error on the part of the company. In terms of the
iustus error doctrine, Y is both material and reasonable. The error made by Carol is due to an error
in persona. When a party intends to accept the offer of one party but instead accepts the offer of
another, the error is usually material. In Kok v Osborne, a party was mistaken about the identity of
the party or parties with whom he was contracting, and the court determined that his mistake was
material. In addition, in the case of National and Overseas Distributors Corporation(Pty) Ltd v
Potato Board, a company sent an acceptance letter to the wrong offeror when it intended to
accept an offer from a different offeror, and this error was deemed material. As a result, the
decisions in Potato Board and Osborne provide judicial support for the conclusion that Carol's
error was material. After establishing that there was a material mistake, the next step in the
investigation based on the iustus error doctrine is to determine whether the mistake made by
Carol was reasonable. There are three situations in which a material error may be considered
reasonable. The first is where the error is caused by the contract asserter’s misrepresentation. The
second scenario is one in which the contract denier is not to blame for his or her error. And the
third is where the contract denier failed to create a reasonable belief in the contract's mind. To
begin with, Carol's error was not caused by a misrepresentation by Jane. Second, Carol is to blame
for the error because the letter of acceptance was addressed and sent to the wrong person. Third,
Carol created a reasonable belief in Jane's mind that the Carol was agreeing to the contract. When
Carol sent the letter of acceptance to Jane, who read it, it created this reasonable belief. As a
result, Carol's error was not reasonable. The preceding reasoning is consistent with the court's
decision in Potato Board. The information presented in the assignment is similar to the
information presented in Potato Board. In Potato Board, the respondent, held a tender process for
the construction of a steel shed. The respondent then sent a letter of acceptance after reviewing
the tenders that were submitted. The respondent informed me that this letter was sent due to an
administrative error. It was an error, and it had intended to accept another party's tender. The
court determined that based on the agreement of the
parties, a legally binding contract was formed intentions of the parties (the declaration theory).
Carol, an owner of an exclusive bicycle shop advertised a special limited-
edition bicycle for sale, and invited the public to make offers for the
bicycle. Jane and Portia were among many other people who submitted
written offers for the bicycle. Jane's offer was for R150 000, and Portia's
offer was for R190 000.Although Carol intended to accept Portia's offer,
she erroneously wrote a letter to Jane, wherein she accepted Jane's offer.
Jane believes that an enforceable contract was formed but Carol denies
this. Apply the direct reliance theory orthe iustus error doctrine and
advise if a legally binding contract was concluded between Carol and
Jane. Apply the direct reliance theory and advise if a legally binding
contract was concluded between Carol and Jane. Discuss fully and refer
to case law in your answer. Don’t apply the Consumer Protection Act 68 of
2008. [20]
Carol accidentally sent the letter of acceptance to Jane because it intended to contract with
another party. Thus, the question is whether this error on the part of the company. In terms of the
iustus error doctrine, Y is both material and reasonable. The error made by Carol is due to an error
in persona. When a party intends to accept the offer of one party but instead accepts the offer of
another, the error is usually material. In Kok v Osborne, a party was mistaken about the identity of
the party or parties with whom he was contracting, and the court determined that his mistake was
material. In addition, in the case of National and Overseas Distributors Corporation(Pty) Ltd v
Potato Board, a company sent an acceptance letter to the wrong offeror when it intended to
accept an offer from a different offeror, and this error was deemed material. As a result, the
decisions in Potato Board and Osborne provide judicial support for the conclusion that Carol's
error was material. After establishing that there was a material mistake, the next step in the
investigation based on the iustus error doctrine is to determine whether the mistake made by
Carol was reasonable. There are three situations in which a material error may be considered
reasonable. The first is where the error is caused by the contract asserter’s misrepresentation. The
second scenario is one in which the contract denier is not to blame for his or her error. And the
third is where the contract denier failed to create a reasonable belief in the contract's mind. To
begin with, Carol's error was not caused by a misrepresentation by Jane. Second, Carol is to blame
for the error because the letter of acceptance was addressed and sent to the wrong person. Third,
Carol created a reasonable belief in Jane's mind that the Carol was agreeing to the contract. When
Carol sent the letter of acceptance to Jane, who read it, it created this reasonable belief. As a
result, Carol's error was not reasonable. The preceding reasoning is consistent with the court's
decision in Potato Board. The information presented in the assignment is similar to the
information presented in Potato Board. In Potato Board, the respondent, held a tender process for
the construction of a steel shed. The respondent then sent a letter of acceptance after reviewing
the tenders that were submitted. The respondent informed me that this letter was sent due to an
administrative error. It was an error, and it had intended to accept another party's tender. The
court determined that based on the agreement of the
parties, a legally binding contract was formed intentions of the parties (the declaration theory).
