I
,RM1501 Assignment 2 (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semes
ter 2 2025 (861902) - DUE 15 September 2025; 10
0% TRUSTED Compl
Case Note: Global & Local Investment Advisors (Pty) Ltd v
Fouché (71/2019) [2020] ZASCA 8; 2021 (1) SA 371 (SCA)
1. Facts
In November 2015, Mr. Fouché entered into a written
discretionary mandate with Global & Local Investment Advisors
(Pty) Ltd, a financial services provider. The agreement
authorised the company to manage funds on his behalf in a
Corporate Cash Manager (CCM) account. A key clause in the
mandate required that all instructions to the company had to
be sent in writing and bear Fouché’s signature.
In August 2016, Fouché’s Gmail account was hacked by
fraudsters. The criminals sent three emails from his account to
Global & Local, instructing them to transfer a total of R804,000
into the bank accounts of third parties. Each email ended with a
typed name such as “Regards, Nick” or “Thanks, Nick,” but did
not carry Fouché’s handwritten or secure electronic signature.
Believing the emails were legitimate, Global & Local processed
the transfers.
When Fouché discovered the unauthorised withdrawals, he
sued Global & Local, arguing that they had acted in breach of
the mandate because the emails were not valid instructions
, from him. The High Court agreed and found in his favour. Global
& Local then appealed the matter to the Supreme Court of
Appeal (SCA).
2. Legal Question
The central legal issue before the SCA was:
Did the emails, which contained only a typed name and were
sent from Fouché’s compromised email account, satisfy the
requirement in the mandate that all instructions be signed by
the client?
In other words, could the typed name at the end of the emails
be treated as a valid “signature” (including an electronic
signature as contemplated by the Electronic Communications
and Transactions Act 25 of 2002, known as the ECT Act)?
3. Reasons for the Decision
The SCA examined several key aspects before arriving at its
conclusion:
(a) The meaning of “signature” in the mandate
The court explained that the purpose of a signature is to
authenticate a document and confirm that the person whose
name appears on it approves its contents. In this case, the
written mandate between Fouché and Global & Local
,RM1501 Assignment 2 (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semes
ter 2 2025 (861902) - DUE 15 September 2025; 10
0% TRUSTED Compl
Case Note: Global & Local Investment Advisors (Pty) Ltd v
Fouché (71/2019) [2020] ZASCA 8; 2021 (1) SA 371 (SCA)
1. Facts
In November 2015, Mr. Fouché entered into a written
discretionary mandate with Global & Local Investment Advisors
(Pty) Ltd, a financial services provider. The agreement
authorised the company to manage funds on his behalf in a
Corporate Cash Manager (CCM) account. A key clause in the
mandate required that all instructions to the company had to
be sent in writing and bear Fouché’s signature.
In August 2016, Fouché’s Gmail account was hacked by
fraudsters. The criminals sent three emails from his account to
Global & Local, instructing them to transfer a total of R804,000
into the bank accounts of third parties. Each email ended with a
typed name such as “Regards, Nick” or “Thanks, Nick,” but did
not carry Fouché’s handwritten or secure electronic signature.
Believing the emails were legitimate, Global & Local processed
the transfers.
When Fouché discovered the unauthorised withdrawals, he
sued Global & Local, arguing that they had acted in breach of
the mandate because the emails were not valid instructions
, from him. The High Court agreed and found in his favour. Global
& Local then appealed the matter to the Supreme Court of
Appeal (SCA).
2. Legal Question
The central legal issue before the SCA was:
Did the emails, which contained only a typed name and were
sent from Fouché’s compromised email account, satisfy the
requirement in the mandate that all instructions be signed by
the client?
In other words, could the typed name at the end of the emails
be treated as a valid “signature” (including an electronic
signature as contemplated by the Electronic Communications
and Transactions Act 25 of 2002, known as the ECT Act)?
3. Reasons for the Decision
The SCA examined several key aspects before arriving at its
conclusion:
(a) The meaning of “signature” in the mandate
The court explained that the purpose of a signature is to
authenticate a document and confirm that the person whose
name appears on it approves its contents. In this case, the
written mandate between Fouché and Global & Local
