, PVL3702 Assignment 1 Semester 1 2026 - DUE March 2026
1. Introduction
In terms of the will theory of contract, consensus requires that the
contracting parties seriously intend to enter into a contractual
relationship, are ad idem with regard to the material terms of the
agreement, and are aware that their wills have met. Consensus is
therefore the foundation upon which contractual liability rests. A
contract does not arise merely because external conduct appears to
indicate agreement; rather, the parties must genuinely agree on the
same essential elements. Where a material mistake is present, the
meeting of the minds is defective or absent, and the contract may be
rendered void ab initio, meaning void from the outset.
South African contract law recognises that not every mistake affects the
validity of a contract. Only mistakes that go to the root of the
agreement and prevent true consensus will have this effect. The
present scenario requires an analysis of the nature of the mistake that
occurred when Jabu sold what both parties believed to be a genuine
diamond ring to Raymond. The issue is whether the mistake relates
merely to a quality or attribute of the ring, or whether it concerns the
very identity or nature of the subject matter, and whether such
mistake renders the contract valid or void.
1. Introduction
In terms of the will theory of contract, consensus requires that the
contracting parties seriously intend to enter into a contractual
relationship, are ad idem with regard to the material terms of the
agreement, and are aware that their wills have met. Consensus is
therefore the foundation upon which contractual liability rests. A
contract does not arise merely because external conduct appears to
indicate agreement; rather, the parties must genuinely agree on the
same essential elements. Where a material mistake is present, the
meeting of the minds is defective or absent, and the contract may be
rendered void ab initio, meaning void from the outset.
South African contract law recognises that not every mistake affects the
validity of a contract. Only mistakes that go to the root of the
agreement and prevent true consensus will have this effect. The
present scenario requires an analysis of the nature of the mistake that
occurred when Jabu sold what both parties believed to be a genuine
diamond ring to Raymond. The issue is whether the mistake relates
merely to a quality or attribute of the ring, or whether it concerns the
very identity or nature of the subject matter, and whether such
mistake renders the contract valid or void.
