PVL3702
assignmen
Assignment 1 Semester 2 2025
UNIQUE CODE: 148712
Detailed Solutions, References & Explanations
DUE DATE: 26 August 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,
Not to duplicate, reproduce and/or misrepresent the
contents of this document as your own work,
Fully accept the consequences should you plagiarise
or misuse this document.
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.
, 0688120934
PREVIEW
Based on the two prescribed cases: Pillay v Shaik 2009 (4) SA 74 (SCA) and
Constantia Insurance Co Ltd v Compusource (Pty) Ltd 2005 (4) SA 345 (SCA)
Legal Opinion: Prescribed Mode of Acceptance and Validity of Contract
The legal issue is whether a valid contract of sale was concluded between Shane and
Porsche Johannesburg, given that the dealership’s authorised representative did not
sign the ‘Contract of Sale’ document. The core contention is whether the absence of
signature invalidated acceptance, and thus the contract.
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.
assignmen
Assignment 1 Semester 2 2025
UNIQUE CODE: 148712
Detailed Solutions, References & Explanations
DUE DATE: 26 August 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,
Not to duplicate, reproduce and/or misrepresent the
contents of this document as your own work,
Fully accept the consequences should you plagiarise
or misuse this document.
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.
, 0688120934
PREVIEW
Based on the two prescribed cases: Pillay v Shaik 2009 (4) SA 74 (SCA) and
Constantia Insurance Co Ltd v Compusource (Pty) Ltd 2005 (4) SA 345 (SCA)
Legal Opinion: Prescribed Mode of Acceptance and Validity of Contract
The legal issue is whether a valid contract of sale was concluded between Shane and
Porsche Johannesburg, given that the dealership’s authorised representative did not
sign the ‘Contract of Sale’ document. The core contention is whether the absence of
signature invalidated acceptance, and thus the contract.
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.
