MRL2601 2024 ASSIGNMENT 02
SEMESTER 1
100% GUARANTEED ANSWERS
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS INCLUDED
QUESTION 1
1.1 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)
According to Freeman & Lockyer V Buckhurst Park Properties (Mangal) Ltd it
follows that where the agent upon whose "apparent" authority the contractor
relies has no "actual “authority from the corporation to enter into a particular
kind of contract with the contractor on behalf of the corporation, the contractor
cannot rely upon the agent's own representation as to his actual authority. The
Office supplies Ltd would have to prove that the third party acted on his or her
own prejudice in this scenario Lesedi and according to NBS Bank Ltd v Cape
Produce Co (Pty) Ltd 2002 the court decided that Turning to the first two
SEMESTER 1
100% GUARANTEED ANSWERS
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS INCLUDED
QUESTION 1
1.1 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)
According to Freeman & Lockyer V Buckhurst Park Properties (Mangal) Ltd it
follows that where the agent upon whose "apparent" authority the contractor
relies has no "actual “authority from the corporation to enter into a particular
kind of contract with the contractor on behalf of the corporation, the contractor
cannot rely upon the agent's own representation as to his actual authority. The
Office supplies Ltd would have to prove that the third party acted on his or her
own prejudice in this scenario Lesedi and according to NBS Bank Ltd v Cape
Produce Co (Pty) Ltd 2002 the court decided that Turning to the first two
