MRL2601
ASSIGNMENT 2 (SEMESTER 1)
DUE DATE: 15 April 2024
Written Assignment Submission Guidelines:
Please ensure that your assignment is submitted electronically through the myUnisa platform no later than 15 April
2024. Kindly note that fax or email submissions will not be accepted.
NB: Assignment submitted to the lecturer(s) through email will not be considered.
QUESTION 1
1.1 Y
Lesedi and Simphiwe registered Furnmax (Pty) Ltd, a company that sells office equipment. The Memorandum of
Incorporation of Furnmax (Pty) Ltd indicates that the board of directors, consisting of Lesedi, Simphiwe, Carol and Precious,
can appoint a managing director who would be authorised to contract on the company’s behalf. However, the board has
never formally appointed a managing director. Nevertheless, Lesedi, with the full knowledge of the other directors, has
contracted with Office Supplies Ltd for the supply of office equipment to Furnmax (Pty) Ltd on two occasions. On the third
occasion that Lesedi contracted with Office Supplies Ltd, Furnmax (Pty) Ltd denied liability for the payment for the
equipment based on the fact that Lesedi was never appointed as the managing director. Upon being sued by Office Supplies
Ltd, Furnmax (Pty) Ltd opposed the claim for payment in terms of the agreement based on the fact that Lesedi was not
authorised to contract on the company’s behalf.
Explain with reference to relevant case law what Office Supplies Ltd would have to prove in order to
rely upon the doctrine of estoppel. (5)
Answer:
In order for Office Supplies Ltd to rely upon the doctrine of estoppel in their claim against Furnmax (Pty)
Ltd, they would need to prove the following elements:
1. Representation:
Thorner v Major (2009) UKHL 18: In this case, Lord Walker articulated that a representation may be
made through words, conduct, or silence, as long as it conveys a clear message to the other party.
Furnmax (Pty) Ltd's actions, such as allowing Lesedi to enter into contracts on its behalf, can be
construed as a representation of Lesedi's authority to contract.
ASSIGNMENT 2 (SEMESTER 1)
DUE DATE: 15 April 2024
Written Assignment Submission Guidelines:
Please ensure that your assignment is submitted electronically through the myUnisa platform no later than 15 April
2024. Kindly note that fax or email submissions will not be accepted.
NB: Assignment submitted to the lecturer(s) through email will not be considered.
QUESTION 1
1.1 Y
Lesedi and Simphiwe registered Furnmax (Pty) Ltd, a company that sells office equipment. The Memorandum of
Incorporation of Furnmax (Pty) Ltd indicates that the board of directors, consisting of Lesedi, Simphiwe, Carol and Precious,
can appoint a managing director who would be authorised to contract on the company’s behalf. However, the board has
never formally appointed a managing director. Nevertheless, Lesedi, with the full knowledge of the other directors, has
contracted with Office Supplies Ltd for the supply of office equipment to Furnmax (Pty) Ltd on two occasions. On the third
occasion that Lesedi contracted with Office Supplies Ltd, Furnmax (Pty) Ltd denied liability for the payment for the
equipment based on the fact that Lesedi was never appointed as the managing director. Upon being sued by Office Supplies
Ltd, Furnmax (Pty) Ltd opposed the claim for payment in terms of the agreement based on the fact that Lesedi was not
authorised to contract on the company’s behalf.
Explain with reference to relevant case law what Office Supplies Ltd would have to prove in order to
rely upon the doctrine of estoppel. (5)
Answer:
In order for Office Supplies Ltd to rely upon the doctrine of estoppel in their claim against Furnmax (Pty)
Ltd, they would need to prove the following elements:
1. Representation:
Thorner v Major (2009) UKHL 18: In this case, Lord Walker articulated that a representation may be
made through words, conduct, or silence, as long as it conveys a clear message to the other party.
Furnmax (Pty) Ltd's actions, such as allowing Lesedi to enter into contracts on its behalf, can be
construed as a representation of Lesedi's authority to contract.
