IRM1501
Assignment 2 Semester 1 2025
Detailed Solutions, References & Explanations
Unique number: 826977
Due Date: 19 March 2025
Terms of use
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document as a guide for learning, comparison and reference purpose,
Terms of use
Not to duplicate, reproduce and/or misrepresent the contents of this document as your own work,
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document
Fully accept the consequences
solely as a guide forshould you plagiarise
learning, reference,or and
misuse this document.
comparison purposes,
Ensure originality of your own work, and fully accept the consequences should you plagiarise or misuse this document.
Comply with all relevant standards, guidelines, regulations, and legislation governing academic and written work.
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is" without any express or
implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or liability for any actions taken based on the
information contained within this document. This document is intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes.
Reproduction, resale, or transmission of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
, +27 67 171 1739
QUESTION 1 (3 ANSWERS PROVIDED)
Makate v Vodacom (Pty) Ltd (CCT52/15) [2016] ZACC 13 (26 April 2016)
Facts of the case
The case of Makate relates to a contractual dispute between Vodacom and Mr
Makate which stems from an oral agreement that was concluded between Mr
Makate and Mr Geissler, the Director of Product Development and Management at
Vodacom.1 This oral agreement was later induced in writing by Mr Geissler who was
at the time acting on behalf of Vodacom and this was done via email
correspondence.2 Mr Makate at the time of the conclusion of the agreement was an
employee of Vodacom and he was employed as a trainee accountant. 3 He had a
distance relationship with his girlfriend and they were struggling to communicate
because ‘she did not always have money to call Mr Makate’.
This encouraged Mr Makate to invent a please ‘call me product’, which would enable
him to effectively communicate with each other and he discussed this idea with his
mentor who later referred him to Mr Geissler.4
Before the launch of the please call me product, Mr Makate discussed the feasibility
of the product with Mr Geissler, and part of this discussion included an agreement
that he, Mr Makate would be paid a share when the product is launched, he asked
for 15%. Subsequently, they both agreed that should there be a dispute regarding
the compensation, the amount to be paid to Mr Makate would be determined by the
CEO.5
Subsequently, there was written communication to all staff members via the
newsletter which confirmed and acknowledged the main inventor of the product as
Mr Makate. In this communication the staff were informed about the manner in which
this product would be launched. However, there was another correspondence that
was sent to the staff wherein it was alleged that the product was now the CEO’s idea
1
Makate v Vodacom (Pty) Ltd (CCT52/15) [2016] ZACC 13 [ 1-16] (Hereinafter referred to as
The Makate case).
2
The Makate case [12].
3
The Makate case [2].
4
The Makate case [ 2 – 4].
5
The Makate case [5]. Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is"
without any express or implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or
liability for any actions taken based on the information contained within this document. This document is
intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes. Reproduction, resale, or transmission
of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
Assignment 2 Semester 1 2025
Detailed Solutions, References & Explanations
Unique number: 826977
Due Date: 19 March 2025
Terms of use
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document as a guide for learning, comparison and reference purpose,
Terms of use
Not to duplicate, reproduce and/or misrepresent the contents of this document as your own work,
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document
Fully accept the consequences
solely as a guide forshould you plagiarise
learning, reference,or and
misuse this document.
comparison purposes,
Ensure originality of your own work, and fully accept the consequences should you plagiarise or misuse this document.
Comply with all relevant standards, guidelines, regulations, and legislation governing academic and written work.
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is" without any express or
implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or liability for any actions taken based on the
information contained within this document. This document is intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes.
Reproduction, resale, or transmission of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
, +27 67 171 1739
QUESTION 1 (3 ANSWERS PROVIDED)
Makate v Vodacom (Pty) Ltd (CCT52/15) [2016] ZACC 13 (26 April 2016)
Facts of the case
The case of Makate relates to a contractual dispute between Vodacom and Mr
Makate which stems from an oral agreement that was concluded between Mr
Makate and Mr Geissler, the Director of Product Development and Management at
Vodacom.1 This oral agreement was later induced in writing by Mr Geissler who was
at the time acting on behalf of Vodacom and this was done via email
correspondence.2 Mr Makate at the time of the conclusion of the agreement was an
employee of Vodacom and he was employed as a trainee accountant. 3 He had a
distance relationship with his girlfriend and they were struggling to communicate
because ‘she did not always have money to call Mr Makate’.
This encouraged Mr Makate to invent a please ‘call me product’, which would enable
him to effectively communicate with each other and he discussed this idea with his
mentor who later referred him to Mr Geissler.4
Before the launch of the please call me product, Mr Makate discussed the feasibility
of the product with Mr Geissler, and part of this discussion included an agreement
that he, Mr Makate would be paid a share when the product is launched, he asked
for 15%. Subsequently, they both agreed that should there be a dispute regarding
the compensation, the amount to be paid to Mr Makate would be determined by the
CEO.5
Subsequently, there was written communication to all staff members via the
newsletter which confirmed and acknowledged the main inventor of the product as
Mr Makate. In this communication the staff were informed about the manner in which
this product would be launched. However, there was another correspondence that
was sent to the staff wherein it was alleged that the product was now the CEO’s idea
1
Makate v Vodacom (Pty) Ltd (CCT52/15) [2016] ZACC 13 [ 1-16] (Hereinafter referred to as
The Makate case).
2
The Makate case [12].
3
The Makate case [2].
4
The Makate case [ 2 – 4].
5
The Makate case [5]. Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is"
without any express or implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or
liability for any actions taken based on the information contained within this document. This document is
intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes. Reproduction, resale, or transmission
of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
