PVL3702 Assignment 2 (ANSWERS) Semester 1 2024 - DISTINCTION GUARANTEED

Well-structured PVL3702 Assignment 2 (ANSWERS) Semester 1 2024 - DISTINCTION GUARANTEED. (DETAILED ANSWERS - DISTINCTION GUARANTEED!). .... Question 1 Answer saved Marked 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. Clear my choice Question 2 Answer saved Marked out of 1.00 Flag question Question text 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. Disclaimer Extreme care has been used to create this document, however the contents are provided “as is” without any representations or warranties, express or implied. The author assumes no liability as a result of reliance and use of the contents of this document. This document is to be used for comparison, research and reference purposes ONLY. No part of this document may be reproduced, resold or transmitted in any form or by any means. Clear my choice Question 3 Answer saved Marked 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. Clear my choice Question 4 Answer saved Marked 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. Disclaimer Extreme care has been used to create this document, however the contents are provided “as is” without any representations or warranties, express or implied. The author assumes no liability as a result of reliance and use of the contents of this document. This document is to be used for comparison, research and reference purposes ONLY. No part of this document may be reproduced, resold or transmitted in any form or by any means. 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. Clear my choice Question 5 Answer saved Marked 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. 3. an error in negotio. 4. a reasonable mistake. 5. a material error and an error in negotio. Clear my choice Question 6 Not yet answered Marked out of 1.00 Flag question Question text A contract for the benefit of a third party relates to Disclaimer Extreme care has been used to create this document, however the contents are provided “as is” without any representations or warranties, express or implied. The author assumes no liability as a result of reliance and use of the contents of this document. This document is to be used for comparison, research and reference purposes ONLY. No part of this document may be reproduced, resold or transmitted in any form or by any means. 1. simple joint liability. 2. stipulatio alteri. 3. liability in solidum. 4. collective joint liability. 5. a delict. Clear my choice Question 7 Not yet answered Marked out of 1.00 Flag question Question text Portia and Lucas are engaged and are living together. They want to purchase Jerome’s car. Jerome has never met Portia. Jerome offers to sell his car to Lucas for R100 000. Lucas and Portia accept Jerome’s offer. Which statement is CORRECT? 1. The acceptance is valid, but Jerome can revoke his offer as he did not make an offer to Portia. 2. This is a very uncertain area of the law, and there is no case law in South Africa which deals with this type of issue. 3. The acceptance was unqualified, therefore the acceptance was valid. 4. A valid contract has been concluded, because Lucas is one of the parties that accepted the offer. 5. Even though the acceptance by Lucas was a conscious response to the offer, the acceptance was not valid. Clear my choice Question 8 Not yet answered Marked out of 1.00 Flag question Question text Disclaimer Extreme care has been used to create this document, however the contents are provided “as is” without any representations or warranties, express or implied. The author assumes no liability as a result of reliance and use of the contents of this document. This document is to be used for comparison, research and reference purposes ONLY. No part of this document may be reproduced, resold or transmitted in any form or by any means. X inherits a watch which Y is interested in buying. X and Y believe that the watch is a genuine Rolex and both know of each other's belief. After X and Y conclude the contract of sale for this watch, they learn that the watch is only an imitation and that it is not a genuine Rolex watch. The contract between these parties is 1. voidable. 2. valid and enforceable. 3. void. 4. neither void nor voidable. 5. void and voidable. Clear my choice Question 9 Not yet answered Marked out of 1.00 Flag question Question text X makes a written offer to Y to purchase Y’s Rolex watch. X sends the written offer by post to Y. Y reads the offer on 13 May and drafts an acceptance on 14 May. Y posts his written acceptance on 15 May to X. X receives the acceptance on 17 May and reads it on 18 May. Based on these facts, which statement is CORRECT? 1. The expedition theory applies, and a valid contract was concluded between X and Y on 15 May. 2. The information theory applies, and a valid contract was concluded between X and Y on 18 May. 3. The reception theory applies, and a valid contract was concluded between X and Y on 18 May. 4. The declaration theory applies, and a valid contract was concluded between X and Y on 17 May. 5. A valid contract was concluded between X and Y on 14 May. Clear my choice Disclaimer Extreme care has been used to create this document, however the contents are provided “as is” without any representations or warranties, express or implied. The author assumes no liability as a result of reliance and use of the contents of this document. This document is to be used for comparison, research and reference purposes ONLY. No part of this document may be reproduced, resold or transmitted in any form or by any means. Question 10 Not yet answered Marked out of 1.00 Flag question Question text Delictual damages can be awarded for 1. innocent misrepresentation. 2. both fraudulent misrepresentation and innocent misrepresentation. 3. both negligent misrepresentation and fraudulent misrepresentation. 4. fraudulent misrepresentation, innocent misrepresentation, as well as negligent misrepresentation. 5. both innocent misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation. Clear my choice PVL3702-23-S2  Welcome Message  Assessment 2 Question 1 Not yetanswered Marked out of2.00 Question 2 Not yetanswered Marked out of2.00 Question 3 Not yetanswered Marked out of2.00 Question 4 Not yetanswered Marked out of2.00 QUIZ On 1 August, Y offers to sell his couch to Z for 10 000. Y and Z further agree that Y’s offer will be openfor Z to accept until 31 August. Which statement is CORRECT ? 1. Y and Z concluded an option contract. 2. Y and Z concluded a pre-emption contract. 3. Y and Z concluded neither an option contract nor a pre-emption contract. 4. Y and Z concluded an option contract and a pre-emption contract. 5. Y and Z concluded a contract subject to a resolutive condition. Which cause of action will render the contract void? 1. A fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation. 2. Duress. 3. Undue infl uence. 4. A reasonable and material mistake. 5. Commercial bribery. Where a contract stipulates that each co-debtor is liable for the full amount of the debt, and the creditorcan accordingly claim the full amount of the debt, or any lesser amount, from any one co-debtor or morethan one co-debtor, this constitutes 1. simple joint liability. 2. stipulatio alteri. 3. liability in solidum . 4. collective joint liability. 5. a delict. X rents a house from Y for R10 000 per month, until such time as his employer transfers him tocommence working in the company’s Cape Town offi ces. The house is located in Johannesburg. Thislease is subject to a 1. suspensive condition. 2. resolutive condition. 3. suspensive time clause. 4. resolutive time clause. 5. modus. Question 5 Not yetanswered Marked out of2.00 Jack is engaged to Jill. Jack has a very strong personality and eventually persuades Jill to sell andtransfer 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 hasthe LEAST amount of relevance, in relation to the cause of action that Jill is likely to rely on in her pursuitto have the transfer of the house into Jack’s name set aside? 1. Proof that Jack applied improper pressure on Jill, which amounted to intimidation. 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 saleagreement. 4. Proof that there was an erosion of Jill’s ability to exercise a free and independent judgment atthe time of contracting with Jack. 5. Proof that Jill was improperly induced to conclude the contract with Jack. Previous activity Assessment 1 Jump to... PVL3702-23-S2  Welcome Message  Assessment 2 Question 6 Not yetanswered Marked out of2.00 Question 7 Not yetanswered Marked out of2.00 Question 8 Not yetanswered Marked out of2.00 Question 9 Not yetanswered Marked out of2.00 QUIZ X inserts ammunition into his gun and points it at Y, and orders him (Y) to sign a written contractual document which X already signed as thepurchaser. X explains that the document is for the sale of Y’s car to him (X), at a price of R30 000. The market value of the car is R250 000. Y,fearing for his life, signs the document as the seller. If Y proves the requirements for the relevant cause of action that he (Y) is most likely topursue, then the contract between X and Y becomes 1. voidable at the instance of both X and Y. 2. neither void nor voidable, but it remains unenforceable. 3. voidable at the instance of Y. 4. automatically void and voidable. 5. void at the instance of X. X has a watch that Y likes. X offers to sell her watch to Y for R10 000. Y accepts this offer, and X and Y further agree that they will reduce theiroral contract to writing and that they will both sign it (“the writing clause”). The parties failed to reduce their contract to writing and sign it. Thepurpose of the parties’ stipulation to reduce their contract to writing and have it signed was to have a written record of their agreement merely tofacilitate proof of the terms of the agreement. X insists that a binding contract was not concluded between the parties because the writingclause was never executed by both parties. Y believes that a binding contract was concluded. From this set of facts, the legal dispute which islikely to arise between X and Y, relates to 1. non-variation clauses. 2. the application of statutory formalities. 3. stipulatio alteri . 4. the expedition theory. 5. whether a formality has been prescribed by the parties. X has a watch that Y likes. X offers to sell her watch to Y for R10 000. Y accepts this offer, and X and Y further agree that they will reduce theiroral contract to writing and that they will both sign it (“the writing clause”). The parties failed to reduce their contract to writing and sign it. Thepurpose of the parties’ stipulation to reduce their contract to writing and have it signed was to have a written record of their agreement merely tofacilitate proof of the terms of the agreement. X insists that a binding contract was not concluded between the parties because the writingclause was never executed by both parties. Y believes that a binding contract was concluded. Which statement is CORRECT ? 1. Since there is no contrary evidence to suggest otherwise, the law presumes that the oral agreement will not be binding until it is reducedto writing and signed by X and Y. 2. The onus is on Y to prove that the parties (X and Y) intended the writing clause to operate as a requirement for the validity of thecontract. 3. Because the intended purpose for the writing clause was to facilitate proof of the terms of the agreement, without compliance with thisclause, the terms of the agreement cannot be proved, therefore a binding agreement was not concluded between X and Y. 4. A binding contract of sale was concluded between X and Y even though a written agreement was not signed by X and Y. 5. Without a signed written agreement by X and Y, the oral agreement lacks certainty, and it is therefore unenforceable. X submits a written offer to Y to purchase Y’s Rolex watch. X sends the written offer by post to Y. Y reads the offer on 13 May and drafts anacceptance on 14 May. Y posts his written acceptance on 15 May to X. X receives the acceptance on 17 May and reads it on 18 May. Which isthe correct theory to apply to determine when the contract between X and Y was concluded? 1. The information theory. 2. The reception theory. 3. The expedition theory. 4. The declaration theory. 5. The reliance theory. Question 10 Not yetanswered Marked out of2.00 Which theory grounds contractual liability by adopting a subjective approach, based solely on consensus? 1. The expedition theory. 2. The reliance theory. 3. The declaration theory. 4. The reception theory. 5. The will theory. Previous activity Assessment 1 Jump to... Question 1 Not yetanswered Marked out of2.00 Question 2 Not yetanswered Marked out of2.00 Question 3 Not yetanswered Marked out of2.00 Question 4 Not yetanswered Marked out of2.00 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 farbelow the market value of the car. Pete, fearing for his life, signs the document. To establish an appropriate cause of action to have the contract set aside, which of the following is NOT necessary for Pete to prove? 1. That Pete had a reasonable fear. 2. That the threat weakened Pete’s power of resistance and rendered his will compliant. 3. That there was a threat of an imminent evil. 4. That the threat was contra bonos mores . 5. That the pressure Gary used caused damage. X has a watch that Y likes. X offers to sell her watch to Y for R1 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 formed unilaterally. 2. an option formed bilaterally. 3. an option formed unilaterally. 4. neither an option, nor a pre-emption. 5. a pre-emption formed bilaterally. Which statement is INCORRECT ? 1. The obligations that arise from contract, delict, and unjustified enrichment, are always imposed by law, irrespective of the will of the parties. 2. The law of contract, delict, and unjustified enrichment, all relate to the law of obligations. 3. Breach of contract and a delict are very similar, in that they both constitute civil wrongs and, in appropriate circumstances, give rise to a duty to pay damages. 4. Sometimes, concurrent contractual and delictual liability can arise, so that the plaintiff may sue on either basis. 5. In the absence of a valid contract, an unjustified enrichment claim may arise when there is a transfer of wealth from one person’s estate to another person’s estate, without agood legal ground or cause for this shift. Which one of the following statements regarding tacit terms is INCORRECT ? 1. The courts often employ the officious bystander test in determining whether a contract contains a tacit term. 2. A tacit term will only be read into a contract if it does not conflict any of the unambiguous express terms of the contract. 3. A tacit term will only be read into a contract if it is necessary in a business sense to give efficacy to the contract. 4. A tacit term is specifically agreed to by the parties and can only form part of a written contract. 5. Trade usage is a fertile field for the importation of tacit terms. Dashboard / Courses / UNISA / 2023 / Semester 1 / PVL3702-23-S1 / Welcome Message / Assessment 2  Dashboard Calendar Question 5 Not yetanswered Marked out of2.00 Question 6 Not yetanswered Marked out of2.00 Question 7 Not yetanswered Marked out of2.00 Question 8 Not yetanswered Marked out of2.00 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 havingbeen pressurized 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 caseof 1. an error in persona . 2. a material error . 3. an error in negotio . 4. a common error. 5. a material error and an error in negotio . P buys an erf from S for R300 000. During the negotiations S points a different erf out to P than the one described in the written contract of sale for R300 000. What type of mistakedoes P make? 1. Error in negotio. 2. Error in substantia. 3. Error in corpore. 4. Error in persona . 5. Error in motive. Portia and Lucas are engaged and are living together. They want to purchase Jerome’s car. Jerome has never met Portia. Jerome offers to sell his car to Lucas for R100 000. Lucas andPortia accept Jerome’s offer. Which statement is CORRECT ? 1. Only Lucas could accept the offer, because the acceptance must be done by the person to whom the offer was made. 2. Either Lucas or Portia could accept the offer as they are engaged. 3. The acceptance by Lucas was unqualified, therefore the acceptance was valid. 4. A valid contract has been concluded, because Lucas is one of the parties that accepted the offer. 5. The acceptance by Lucas was a conscious response to the offer, therefore the acceptance was valid. X inherits a watch which Y is interested in buying. X and Y believe that the watch is a genuine Rolex and both know of each other's belief. When they conclude the contract, Y tells Xthat he is only buying the watch because it is a Rolex. However, it turns out to be only an imitation. This is most probably a case of a 1. resolutive condition. 2. material error in motive. 3. suspensive condition. 4. common mistake. 5. resolutive condition and a common mistake. Dashboard / Courses / UNISA / 2023 / Semester 1 / PVL3702-23-S1 / Welcome Message / Assessment 2 Dashboard Calendar Question 9 Not yetanswered Marked out of2.00 Question 10 Not yetanswered Marked out of2.00 X makes a written offer to Y to purchase Y’s Rolex watch. X sends the written offer by post to Y. Y reads the offer on 13 May and drafts an acceptance on 14 May. Y posts his writtenacceptance on 15 May to X. X receives the acceptance on 17 May and reads it on 18 May. When was the contract concluded? 1. 13 May. 2. 14 May. 3. 15 May. 4. 17 May. 5. 18 May. If commercial bribery exists, the agreement between the briber and the principal is 1. voidable. 2. void. 3. void and voidable. 4. neither void nor voidable. 5. always an agreement in restraint of trade. ◄ Assessment 1 Jump to... DISCUSSION FORUM ► Dashboard / Courses / UNISA / 2023 / Semester 1 / PVL3702-23-S1 / Welcome Message / Assessment 2 Dashboard Calendar CONFIDENTIAL Page 2 of 19 PVL3702 May/June 2020 • Click on the radio button [the small circle] that corresponds to your answer for that question. • Click on the Continue button to move to step 3. • If you want to restart the assignment, click on Clear Form to remove all your selections and start from new. Step 3: Verify the answers to your multiple-choice assignment This screen presents a summary of all your answers. Use it as a final check. • Click on the Continue button to submit your assignment. If you do not click Continue, no submission action will take place. • If you want to redo the answers to the assignment, click Back to go back to the previous step. Step 4: Assessment submission report This is your proof that your examination answers were successfully submitted. If you do not see this screen, Unisa has not received your submission. It is advisable to print this page or make a screen capture for record purposes. A copy of this page will also be emailed to your myLife email account. PLEASE NOTE: If you experience technical problems, of any kind, on the day of the examination and your examination answers are not submitted by the cut-off time, you will be marked as absent and automatically deferred to the October/November 2020 examination. No other type of submission of your examination answers will be accepted. Note: Answer ALL the questions. WHERE APPLICABLE, CHOOSE THE MOST CORRECT ANSWER. Do not apply the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 to any of the questions. QUESTION 1 A sues B based on a contract, which B denies exists. Which statement is INCORRECT? 1 Where prima facie proof exists that B agreed to the terms of an agreement, the evidentiary burden then shifts to B to show that despite this, consensus was not reached between the parties. 2 The contract can be proved through consensus. 3 The contract cannot be proved, based on reasonable reliance on the appearance of consensus. 4 In the pursuit to prove that the contract was concluded, a subjective state of mind can be proved with objective evidence. (2) CONFIDENTIAL Page 3 of 19 PVL3702 May/June 2020 QUESTION 2 X resides in Durban. He (X) applies for a job to company Y, in Johannesburg. X is interviewed for the job and subsequently receives a letter from the company informing him that his application was successful and that he was being offered the job, and this letter stated the terms of the offer. In response thereto, X informed the company that he accepts the offer of employment, and then resigns from his employment in Durban. He also then sells his house in Durban, and makes arrangements to have his furniture moved to his new home in Johannesburg. He then receives an apology letter from company Y, stating that the letter of appointment was sent to him by mistake, and that it was intended to be sent to another person who was interviewed by the selection committee. The contested issue is whether an enforceable agreement was concluded between the parties. A court hearing this matter is likely to find that 1 an enforceable agreement was not concluded. 2 an enforceable agreement was concluded based on the application of the will theory. 3 the expedition theory applies to these set of facts. 4 an enforceable agreement was concluded, based on the application of the doctrine of quasi-mutual assent. (2) QUESTION 3 Assume the same facts in question 2 above. A court hearing this matter is likely to find that company Y’s mistake was 1 material. 2 non-material. 3 an error in corpore. 4 an error in negotio. (2) QUESTION 4 Assume the same facts in question 2 above. A court hearing this matter is likely to find that company Y’s mistake was 1 reasonable, because one party was led reasonably to believe by the other party that a valid contract was concluded between them. 2 reasonable, based on the concurring expressions of intention of the parties. 3 reasonable because it (Company Y) made an innocent mistake. 4 not reasonable. (2) CONFIDENTIAL Page 4 of 19 PVL3702 May/June 2020 QUESTION 5 X rents premises from Y for R10 000 per month. In terms of the lease agreement, the rental must be paid in advance on the first day of each month. The lease also contains a clause requiring that any variation of any of the terms of the lease (including this clause) has to be in writing and signed by both parties, for it to be legally binding. Later Y and X agree orally that X may pay the rental on the third day of each month, but this oral agreement is never reduced to writing and signed by the parties. Y accepts payment for two months on the third day of the month. In the next month of June when X makes payment on the third day, Y changes his mind and informs X, that X should vacate the premises because X has breached the contract by not paying the rental on the first day of June. For each option below, two aspects of contract law are mentioned. In which option below are both aspects MOST relevant to consider, based on these set of facts? 1 Statutory formalities prescribed by law and pacta sunt servanda. 2 Formalities stipulated by the parties and waiver. 3 The Shifren principle and formalities prescribed by law. 4 Non-variation clauses and stipulatio alteri. (2) QUESTION 6 Assume the same facts in question 5 above. If the Supreme Court of Appeal presently were to hear this dispute, it is likely to hold that 1 X did breach the contract of lease and Y did breach the subsequent oral agreement. Therefore, both parties are in equal guilt, entitling X as the possessor to remain on the premises. 2 Y did breach the oral agreement and therefore X is entitled to remain on the premises. 3 X did not breach the contract, because the oral agreement constitutes a binding compromise. 4 X did breach the contract, because the oral agreement is not legally binding. (2) QUESTION 7 X makes an offer to sell her watch to Y for R2500. X and Y agree on 15 May that X’s offer will be open for acceptance until 31 May. On 20 May, X informs Y that she (X) intends to sell the watch to Z on 30 May. On 21 May Y informs X that he (Y) accepts the offer, but X refuses to sell the watch to Y. Which statement is CORRECT? 1 From these set of facts, the only enforceable agreement concluded between X and Y occurred on 21 May. 2 After X informed Y on 20 May that she (X) intends to sell the watch to Z, the option contract concluded on 15 May became null and void, but it was subsequently revived on 21 May when Y accepted X’s offer. 3 An option contract was concluded between X and Y on 15 May. 4 An option contract was concluded on 21 May when Y accepted the offer, and a further contract was concluded for the sale of the watch on this day. (2) CONFIDENTIAL Page 5 of 19 PVL3702 May/June 2020 QUESTION 8 Assume the same facts in question 7 above. Y wants to compel X to sell the watch to him. How would you best advise Y? 1 To cancel the relevant contract and seek an order for specific performance against X. 2 To enforce the relevant contract and cancel the relevant contract simultaneously through the use of an interdict, to stop X from selling the watch to Z. 3 To cancel the relevant contract and seek to interdict X from selling the watch to Z. 4 To enforce the relevant contract and seek to interdict X from selling the watch to Z. (2) QUESTION 9 X and Y are friends. They want to purchase Z’s car. Z offers to sell his car to Y for R100 000. X and Y accept Z’s offer. Which statement is CORRECT? 1 Only Y could accept the offer for an enforceable agreement to be concluded. 2 Either X or Y could accept the offer for an enforceable agreement to be concluded. 3 The acceptance by X and Y resulted in the conclusion of an enforceable agreement with Z. 4 A valid contract has been concluded, because Y is one of the parties who accepted the offer. (2) QUESTION 10 Which statement is CORRECT? 1 If a performance is objectively impossible at the time of conclusion of the contract, the obligation agreed to remains enforceable. 2 Where performance of either party becomes impossible after the conclusion of the contract, owing to the fault of either the debtor or the creditor, the contract is not terminated, but the party who rendered performance impossible has committed a breach of contract. 3 The remedy of specific performance results in the termination of an obligation. 4 One of the requirements to prove supervening impossibility of performance is that the performance must be subjectively impossible. (2) CONFIDENTIAL Page 6 of 19 PVL3702 May/June 2020 QUESTION 11 Which statement regarding cancellation of a contract is INCORRECT? 1 Cancellation of a contract is a type of breach of contract. 2 In the absence of a provision in the contract regulating the matter, a party can cancel a contract where the breach of contract on the part of the other party is material. 3 A party can cancel a contract where provision has been made in the contract for a right to resile in the circumstances that exist. 4 Cancellation of a contract is available to a party only in exceptional circumstances. (2) QUESTION 12 Y has a watch that X likes. On 5 August, X sends a written offer by post to Y, to purchase Y’s watch for R10000. One of the terms in the offer is that the offer will lapse on 20 August. The offer also stipulates that X must be aware of the acceptance, for any contractual obligations to arise. Y writes the letter of acceptance on 9 August in response to X’s offer, and Y posts this written acceptance on 10 August. X’s son collects the post from the Post Office on 17 August, and amongst the sealed letters of post collected, is Y’s acceptance. X’s son is not responsible and only hands all the sealed post to X, on 20 August. On 21 August, X opens the post and reads the acceptance. Which theory forms the primary basis to apply under South African law, when considering if a contract was concluded between the parties? 1 An objective application of the declaration theory. 2 A subjective application of the reliance theory. 3 A subjective application of the will theory. 4 An objective application of the will theory. (2) QUESTION 13 Assume the same facts in question 12 above. Which statement is CORRECT? 1 A valid contract was concluded between X and Y on 10 August, based on the application of the expedition theory. 2 The correct theory to apply is the information theory, therefore a valid contract was not concluded between X and Y. 3 The correct theory to apply is the reception theory, therefore a contract was concluded between X and Y on 20 August. 4 The correct theory to apply is the declaration theory, therefore a valid contract was concluded on 9 August. (2) CONFIDENTIAL Page 7 of 19 PVL3702 May/June 2020 QUESTION 14 Which statement is INCORRECT? 1 Public policy is informed by the concept of ubuntu. 2 According to the Supreme Court of Appeal, concepts such as fairness, good faith and reasonableness, are not independent substantive rules in contract law, which a judge can apply to enforce contractual justice between the parties. 3 The Constitutional Court has held that self-autonomy or the ability to regulate one’s own affairs, even to one’s own detriment, is the very essence of freedom and a vital part of dignity. 4 The exceptio doli generalis is a substantive defence based on equity which was received and judicially recognised in Roman-Dutch law, and which is presently also recognised in South African law. (2) QUESTION 15 P buys S’s painting for R50 000 on 1 June and pays S R50 000 immediately. The parties agree that S will deliver the painting to P at her (P’s) house on 5 June. S attempts to deliver the painting to P on 5 June, but P refuses to accept delivery as she is busy entertaining her guests. She instead tells S to deliver the painting the next day. Which statement is CORRECT? 1 P has not committed breach of contract, as S must first give P notice to accept S’s performance within a reasonable time, in order to place P in mora. 2 P committed a breach of the contract, by not timeously accepting S’s performance. 3 P by her conduct has repudiated the contract. 4 Because P prevented S from performing, P committed prevention of performance. (2) QUESTION 16 X has a watch that Y likes. X offers to sell her watch to Y for R10 000. Y accepts this offer, and X and Y further agree that they will reduce their oral contract to writing and that they will both sign it (“the writing clause”). The parties failed to reduce their contract to writing and sign it. The purpose for the parties’ stipulation to reduce their contract to writing and have it signed was to have a written record of their agreement merely to facilitate proof of the terms of the agreement. X insists that a binding contract was not concluded between the parties because the writing clause was never executed by both parties. Y believes that a binding contract was concluded. From this set of facts, the MOST important legal dispute which is likely to arise between X and Y, relates to 1 non-variation clauses. 2 the application of statutory formalities. 3 whether a formality has been prescribed by the parties. 4 the declaration theory. (2) CONFIDENTIAL Page 8 of 19 PVL3702 May/June 2020 QUESTION 17 Assume the same facts in question 16 above. Which statement is CORRECT? 1 Since there is no contrary evidence to suggest otherwise, the law presumes that the oral agreement will not be binding until it is reduced to writing and signed by the parties. 2 The onus is on Y to prove that the parties (X and Y) intended the writing clause to operate as a requirement for the validity of the contract. 3 Because the intended purpose for the writing clause was to facilitate proof of the terms of the agreement, without compliance with this clause, the terms of the agreement cannot be proved, therefore a binding agreement was not concluded between X and Y. 4 A binding contract of sale was concluded between X and Y. (2) QUESTION 18 X and Y conclude a contract. Indicate when their contract will be VOIDABLE: 1 The contract is subject to a resolutive condition which has been fulfilled. 2 X and Y’s performances become objectively impossible without the fault of either party, after the contract has been concluded. 3 The contract is subject to a suspensive condition which has not yet been fulfilled. 4 Y concluded the contract under circumstances where the requirements for a negligent misrepresentation on the part of X can be proved. (2) QUESTION 19 X and Y conclude a contract, in terms of which X rents a house from Y in Durban for R9 000 a month, until she finds work in Cape Town. The contract is subject to a 1 suspensive condition. 2 resolutive condition. 3 suspensive time clause. 4 resolutive time clause. (2) CONFIDENTIAL Page 9 of 19 PVL3702 May/June 2020 QUESTION 20 D, a builder, and E agree that D will build a house on E’s land for R600 000, which must be completely built on 30 April. It was also agreed that the amount of R600 000 is payable to D on 30 April, only if the house is completely built on this date. On 30 April the house is only 90% complete. On 1 May, E and his family move into the house. It would cost R50 000 for E to complete the house. E refuses to pay any amount to D because D failed to complete building the house timeously. Taking into account that E and his family moved into the house on 1 May, which statement is CORRECT? 1 E did not commit a breach of the contract. 2 E committed breach of the contract in the form of mora creditoris. 3 E committed breach of contract in the form of repudiation. 4 E committed breach of contract in the form of prevention of performance. (2) QUESTION 21 Assume the same facts in question 20 above. The contract between the parties is a 1 unilateral and bilateral reciprocal contract. 2 unilateral contract that is a reciprocal contract. 3 bilateral contract that is a reciprocal contract. 4 bilateral contract that is not a reciprocal contract. (2) QUESTION 22 Assume the same facts in question 20 above. Which answer reflects the CORRECT legal position? 1 D is not entitled to any payment from E. 2 D is entitled to a reduced amount, quantified as R550 000, provided that E is utilising the defective performance, and all the other requirements for such a claim can be proved. 3 D is entitled to a reduced amount, quantified as R540 000 (which is 90% of R600 000), provided that it is equitable, and all the other requirements for such a claim can be proved. 4 D is entitled to a reduced amount, quantified as the difference between the market value the house would have had in its completed state and the current market value of the house in its uncompleted state. (2) CONFIDENTIAL Page 10 of 19 PVL3702 May/June 2020 QUESTION 23 Assume the same facts in question 20 above. If the court exercises its’ discretion to grant a monetary award to D, such a claim is likely to be 1 contractual. 2 delictual. 3 based on unjustified enrichment. 4 based on cession. (2) QUESTION 24 Assume the same facts in question 20 above. The failure by D to complete building the house in accordance with the terms agreed to by the parties, raises the issue whether D breached the contract. In this regard, which two forms of breach are MOST relevant to consider? 1 positive malperformance and an anticipatory breach of contract. 2 mora debitoris and positive malperformance. 3 repudiation and mora debitoris. 4 prevention of performance and mora creditoris. (2) QUESTION 25 Which statement is INCORRECT? 1 Where the requirements for commercial bribery are proved by party Z, it (party Z) has the right to set aside the contract induced by the bribery of its (party Z’s) agent. 2 One of the requirements to prove for commercial bribery to exist, is a reward. 3 In South Africa, the basis for recognising commercial bribery as a cause of action that the principal can pursue to have the relevant contract set aside, is because it stems from fraudulent conduct on the part of the briber and the agent. 4 Where the requirements for commercial bribery are proved by the principal, the contract between the principal and the briber is not void. (2) CONFIDENTIAL Page 11 of 19 PVL3702 May/June 2020 QUESTION 26 ABC company advertises that they have manufactured a patent medicine. The advert states that if this medication is taken, by any person, according to the manufacturer’s prescription, that person will not become ill with the coronavirus sickness. And the advert states that the company is so confident of this medication, that if anyone does get sick with this virus, after taking the medication as prescribed, the company will pay that person R50 000. On the basis of the advert, Y purchased the medication, and he took the medication as it was prescribed by the manufacturer (ABC company). Unfortunately for Y, he still fell ill with the coronavirus. Upset about this, Y claims R50 000 from ABC company. Which statement is CORRECT? 1 The ABC company advertisement is merely an invitation to do business, rather than an offer. 2 ABC company made a valid offer which was firm, complete, clear and certain. 3 The offer made by ABC company is not valid because it was not directed at a specified person. 4 The offer from ABC company was firm, clear and certain, but it was not complete. (2) QUESTION 27 Assume the same facts in question 26 above. Assume further that a valid offer was made by ABC company. Which statement is CORRECT? 1 Y’s acceptance was not a conscious response to the offer. 2 Y did not inform ABC company that he (Y) had accepted the offer, therefore an enforceable contract was not concluded between the parties. 3 Y did not comply with the mode of acceptance prescribed by ABC company. 4 A valid and binding contract was concluded between ABC company and Y. (2) QUESTION 28 Which statement is INCORRECT? 1 Sometimes, concurrent contractual and delictual liability can arise, such that the plaintiff may sue the defendant, on either basis. 2 In general, a delictual obligation is imposed by law whereas a contractual obligation is voluntarily assumed by the parties. 3 The law of contract, delict, and unjustified enrichment, do not all relate to the law of obligations. 4 In the absence of a valid contract, an unjustified enrichment claim may arise when there is a transfer of wealth from one person’s estate to another person’s estate, without a good legal ground or cause for this shift. (2) CONFIDENTIAL Page 12 of 19 PVL3702 May/June 2020 QUESTION 29 X sold a painting to Y for R50 000. Assume that in terms of the “Price Control Regulations Act of 2015”, the maximum price that this type of painting can be sold for is R30 000. In terms of this Act, a contract of sale at a price in excess of the maximum amount prescribed for this type of painting, is void. Y was aware about the maximum regulation price prescribed for this type of sale, but X was not, when they were negotiating the sale price. X delivered the painting to Y, but Y refuses to pay the purchase price of R50 000. The material focus of this dispute rests on which requirement, relating to the validity of the agreement between X and Y? 1 Legality. 2 Possibility. 3 Consensus. 4 Formalities. (2) QUESTION 30 Assume the same facts in question 29 above. Which statement is CORRECT? 1 Contractually, X can claim the painting back as Y has committed a breach of contract. 2 Contractually, X can claim the painting back as Y has been enriched at X’s expense. 3 X may claim the return of the painting to him (X), because X was not aware of the maximum price regulation prescribed for this type of sale, and Y would be enriched at X’s expense if the painting is not returned to X. 4 Because both parties were not in equal guilt, the court will order Y to pay X R30 000. (2) QUESTION 31 Z walks into a hardware shop. He sees a handyman drill displayed with a price tag of R5 000. He takes the drill and proceeds to the cashier, who is the owner of the shop. The owner scans the drill, which reflects that R5 000 should be paid. Z pays R5 000 to the owner, and then walks out of the shop with the drill. For this transaction of R5 000, there is evidence of 1 an offer, a counter-offer, and an acceptance. 2 an oral offer, and acceptance by conduct. 3 an invitation to do business, an offer, and an acceptance. 4 an offer and acceptance by conduct, but there is no evidence of an invitation to do business. (2) CONFIDENTIAL Page 13 of 19 PVL3702 May/June 2020 QUESTION 32 S fraudulently informs P that there are 2500 fruit trees on his (S’s) farm, as a result of which P buys the farm for R800 000. P pays the R800 000, and the farm is thereafter registered in her (P’s) name. It later turns out that there are only 2000 fruit trees on the farm. Despite this, P decides to uphold the contract, because he would have still concluded the contract with S, albeit on different terms, had he known that there were only 2000 fruit trees on the farm. P would have paid R700 000 had he known that the farm only had 2000 fruit trees. The value of the missing 500 trees is R200 000, if each tree were to be purchased individually. The market value of the farm is R700 000 with the 2000 fruit trees. The market value of the farm would have been R950 000, if it had 2500 fruit trees. What amount (if any) will P be able to claim from S, based on the most likely cause of action P will rely on, in pursuit of her claim? 1 R100 000. 2 R150 000. 3 R200 000. 4 R250 000 (2) QUESTION 33 X and Y conclude a contract, in which X purchases Y’s watch for R15 000. The next day Y receives a higher offer for the same watch from Z, which he (Y) accepts. Y immediately informs X that the watch has been sold to Z. The next day, prior to delivering the watch to Z, Y’s conscience troubles him, and he destroys the watch. With reference to the contract concluded between Y and X, and regarding Y’s conduct, which pair of options below are MOST relevant to consider? 1 Repudiation and positive malperformance. 2 Positive malperformance and prevention of performance. 3 Repudiation and mora debitoris. 4 Prevention of performance and repudiation. (2) QUESTION 34 Assume the same facts in question 33 above. The market value of the watch is R25 000. X claims R10 000 damages from Y. Which statement is CORRECT? 1 In the contract between X and Y, because the parties did not agree to the damages X is now claiming, legal causation cannot be proved, therefore the claim will not succeed. 2 This claim is likely to succeed because the damages flowing from the breach are not too remote and therefore can be recovered as a matter of course. 3 The contract Y concluded with Z constitutes exceptional circumstances, therefore X’s claim will not succeed. 4 X’s claim will fail in accordance with the convention principle, but a court will uphold the claim based on the contemplation principle, because the damages were reasonably foreseeable. (2) CONFIDENTIAL Page 14 of 19 PVL3702 May/June 2020 QUESTION 35 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 Jill was improperly induced to conclude the contract with Jack. 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. (2) QUESTION 36 Which statement relating to restraint of trade agreements is INCORRECT? 1 When assessing the reasonableness of a restraint of trade agreement, a factor to consider is the relative bargaining positions of the parties, which is further informed by the constitutional values of equality and dignity. 2 A restraint of trade agreement that is reasonable as between the parties may nevertheless affect an element of public interest that does not relate to the relationship between the parties, and protecting such an interest may justify a courts’ decision to reject the operation of the restraint in question. 3 A restraint of trade agreement that is contrary to public policy is void and unenforceable. 4 The party seeking partial enforcement of an agreement in restraint of trade must raise the issue and establish a basis for partial enforcement, but the party who does not wish to be bound by the restraint, still bears the onus of proving that partial enforcement is contrary to the public interest. (2) QUESTION 37 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 initially turns the offer down, but his wife, Z, makes such a scene that he relents and 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 R20 000 from X. Regarding this factual scenario, which statement (if any) is CORRECT? 1 Because of Y’s unconscionable conduct, the contract is automatically unenforceable. 2 Under South African common law, in this scenario it is very clear that the contract concluded between X and Y is enforceable, and Y can only recover R15 000 from X, which amount represents the difference between the price agreed to (R20 000) and a reasonable fee (R5 000). 3 On the basis of a delictual claim, X will have to pay Y a reasonable fee of R5 000. 4 None of the above statements. (2) CONFIDENTIAL Page 15 of 19 PVL3702 May/June 2020 QUESTION 38 Where a contract stipulates that each co-debtor is liable for the full amount of the debt, and the creditor can accordingly claim the full amount of the debt, or any lesser amount, from any one co-debtor or more than one co-debtor, this constitutes 1 simple joint liability. 2 stipulatio alteri. 3 liability in solidum. 4 collective joint liability. (2) QUESTION 39 A contract of sale was concluded wherein X sold a Rolex watch to Y and Z. This is an example of 1 divisible performance. 2 indivisible performance. 3 divisible and indivisible performance. 4 neither divisible, nor indivisible performance. (2) QUESTION 40 X and Y reach an agreement on the basis that should X sell her leather couch, she (X) will offer to sell it to Y first, before making an offer to sell the couch to any other person. X sells the couch to Z for R10 000 without first offering it to Y for sale. Z paid the R10 000 to X, and X delivered the couch to Z. Z was not aware of the contract concluded between X and Y. Which statement is CORRECT? 1 The agreement between X and Y, and the agreement between X and Z, are both legally binding agreements. 2 There is no agreement between X and Y about the price of the leather couch, therefore their agreement is void for vagueness. 3 Y has a real right against Z and a personal right against X. 4 The agreement between X and Z is legally binding, but the agreement between X and Y is not legally binding. (2) CONFIDENTIAL Page 16 of 19 PVL3702 May/June 2020 QUESTION 41 Assume the same facts in question 40 above. Y is very upset that X sold the couch to Z, as she (Y) wants to claim the couch. Which remedy (if any) will attract a successful outcome for Y? 1 An application for an interdict against Z, to hand over the couch to X. 2 A claim for cancellation of the contract between X and Y, thereby forcing X and Z to make restitution of the couch in favour of Y. 3 A claim for specific performance against Y based on a unilateral declaration of intent. 4 None of the above remedies. (2) QUESTION 42 X owes Y R7 000 for clothing goods that Y supplied to X. It turns out that Y owes X R5 000 for meat that X supplied to Y from her (X’s) butchery. Both debts are due and enforceable. X therefore only pays Y R2 000. This is a case of 1 novation. 2 compromise. 3 set-off. 4 release. (2) QUESTION 43 X claims R15 000 from Y. Y communicates to X that he (Y) does not owe any amount to X. Y nevertheless sends a cheque to X, which is payable to X for R10 000. Accompanying the cheque is a letter from Y informing X that the cheque payment is in full and final settlement of any claim that X has or may have against Y. Y further states in the letter that if X deposits the cheque, this will then bring finality to the matter and put an end to their dispute. X deposits the cheque into his (X’s) bank account. X subsequently informs Y in writing that he received the R10 000 as part payment towards Y’s debt of R15 000, and that the balance of R5 000 is therefore still due and payable. Y contends that X has no further claim against him (X). The disputed issue between X and Y is likely to centre around which aspect of contract law? 1 set-off. 2 compromise. 3 novation. 4 release. (2) CONFIDENTIAL Page 17 of 19 PVL3702 May/June 2020 QUESTION 44 Assume the same facts in question 43 above. Based on the correct answer in question 43 above, assume furthermore that a court hearing the dispute finds that a valid offer was made by Y. Which option below is NOT controversial and is unlikely to be contested, regarding the acceptance aspect of the enquiry? 1 Whether there was an unequivocal acceptance on the part of X. 2 Whether X rejected the offer. 3 Whether X’s response in writing to Y, was a conscious response to the offer. 4 Whether X qualified his acceptance and made a counter-offer. (2) QUESTION 45 X buys land from Y for R500 000 after being told by Y that business rights exist on this land. It later emerges that no such rights exist. Y however believed in good faith that business rights did exist on the land. The contract contains a term which excludes Y’s liability for “any misrepresentation” made prior, during and after the conclusion of the contract. X did not know of the existence of this clause because she did not read the contract of sale before signing it in Y’s presence. The contract of sale complies with the formalities prescribed for contracts for the sale of land. Which two types of error below are the MOST relevant to consider, relating to X being told by Y that the land has business rights for these set of facts? 1 An error in substantia and an error in corpore. 2 An error in corpore and an error in negotio. 3 An error in qualitate and an error in persona. 4 An error in substantia and an error in negotio. (2) QUESTION 46 Assume the same facts in question 45 above. X wants to have the contract set aside. Which statement is CORRECT? 1 Where the cause of action relied on by X is that of “innocent misrepresentation” because Y represented in good faith that the land had existing business rights, then if X proves the requirements for this cause of action, the contract will be rendered void. 2 Based on the entire factual scenario in question 45 above, X did not make a reasonable mistake. 3 X made a misrepresentation regarding her intention to be bound to the contract of sale. 4 X did not make any misrepresentation. (2) CONFIDENTIAL Page 18 of 19 PVL3702 May/June 2020 QUESTION 47 X points a loaded gun at Y, and orders him (Y) to sign a written contractual document which X already signed. X explains that the document is for the sale of Y’s car to him (X), at a price of R30 000. The market value of the car is R250 000. Y, fearing for his life, signs the document. If Y proves the requirements for the relevant cause of action that he (Y) is most likely to pursue, then the contract between X and Y becomes 1 void at the instance of Y. 2 neither void nor voidable, but it remains unenforceable. 3 void. 4 voidable at the instance of Y. (2) QUESTION 48 X contracts with Y for the latter (Y) to repair his (X’s) security gate at the entrance of his home. The parties agree that Y will do the repairs on 1 June. On 1 June X waits at home the whole day, but Y does not arrive. By not working on 1 June, X could not earn R7 500 of income. X lives in an area which has a high crime rate, so he suffered from mental stress and disappointment when Y did not arrive on 1 June to repair the security gate. X wants to pursue an appropriate remedy against Y. Which one of the following is necessary for X to prove as a requirement, for a contractual claim that the courts may recognise? Choose the most CORRECT answer? 1 The value of his (X’s) loss of income in accordance with the market value approach. 2 That Y’s breach of contract, was the dominant cause of X’s loss of income. 3 The monetary quantification of his (X’s) mental stress and disappointment. 4 That on a balance of probabilities, he (X) would not have suffered the loss of income, if Y performed in accordance with the contract. (2) QUESTION 49 X contracts with Y for the latter (Y) to repair his (X’s) television set. One week later, Y still did not arrive to repair X’s television set. X then contracted with Z to repair the television set. Two days later, Z repairs the television set. A week later, Y arrives to repair X’s television set. Which statement is CORRECT? 1 Regarding the contract concluded between X and Y, this is a case of supervening impossibility of performance. 2 Regarding the contract concluded between X and Y, both X and Y breached the contract. 3 Y breached the contract because of his delay in rendering performance. 4 X breached the contract that was concluded between X and Y. (2) CONFIDENTIAL Page 19 of 19 PVL3702 May/June 2020 QUESTION 50 Which statement is INCORRECT? 1 If a material statement is made by the seller to the buyer during the negotiations, bearing on the quality of the res vendita and going beyond mere praise and commendation, and if the statement turns out to be unfounded, then the purchaser may cancel the contract or sue for a reduction in the purchase price. 2 For a damages claim to succeed based on a pre-contractual negligent misrepresentation as a cause of action, there must be a material breach of the contract that causes the loss. 3 Inducement is a requirement that must be proved, for a cause of action based on misrepresentation. 4 Generally, rescission and restitution are remedies available to a party who can prove the requirements for the misrepresentation in question. (2) Total: [100] © UNISA 2020 6 A valid contract could still arise in terms of the doctrine of quasi-mutual assent or direct reliance theory (Hutchison and Pretorius Contract 98-100 and 106-108). The court stated the test in Sonap Petroleum (SA) (Pty) Ltd (formerly known as Sonarep (SA) (Pty) Ltd) v Pappadogianis 1992 2 SA 234 (A) 239-240 as follows: