IRM1501
Assignment 2 Semester 2 2025
Unique #:860058
Due Date: 15 September 2025
Detailed solutions, explanations, workings
and references.
+27 81 278 3372
, 2 DIFFERENT ANSWERS PROVIDED
Global & Local Investments Advisors (Pty) Ltd v Fouché (71/2019) [2020]
ZASCA 8; 2021 (1) SA 371 (SCA)
Facts
Mr Nickolaus Ludick Fouché, a mining consultant, appointed Global & Local
Investments Advisors (Pty) Ltd (Global) as his financial agent in November 2015 to
invest funds on his behalf through a Corporate Cash Manager (CCM) account held
with Investec Bank. The written mandate required that all investment instructions
must be sent to a specific fax number or email address with the client’s signature.1
In August 2016, fraudsters hacked Mr Fouché’s Gmail account and sent three
fraudulent emails to Global, instructing it to transfer a total of R804,000 to third-party
accounts at First National Bank. These emails, although sent from Fouché’s
legitimate address, did not include his actual or electronic signature but simply ended
with “Nick” or “Thanks, Nick”.2
Global complied with these fraudulent instructions and released the funds. Mr
Fouché, upon discovering this, denied authorising the payments and sued Global for
breach of mandate. The Gauteng High Court found in his favour, ordering Global to
repay the R804,000 and the costs of the suit. Global appealed the judgment to the
Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA).3
Legal Question
Did Global breach its mandate by relying on fraudulent email instructions that lacked
a proper signature, and was section 13(3) of the Electronic Communications and
Transactions Act 25 of 2002 (ECT Act) applicable in validating those instructions?4
Reasons for the Decision
1
Global & Local Investments Advisors (Pty) Ltd v Fouché [2020] ZASCA 8; 2021 (1) SA 371 (SCA), para [2].
2
Ibid., para [3].
3
Ibid., para [1, 4] .
4
Ibid.
Varsity Cube 2025 +27 81 278 3372
Assignment 2 Semester 2 2025
Unique #:860058
Due Date: 15 September 2025
Detailed solutions, explanations, workings
and references.
+27 81 278 3372
, 2 DIFFERENT ANSWERS PROVIDED
Global & Local Investments Advisors (Pty) Ltd v Fouché (71/2019) [2020]
ZASCA 8; 2021 (1) SA 371 (SCA)
Facts
Mr Nickolaus Ludick Fouché, a mining consultant, appointed Global & Local
Investments Advisors (Pty) Ltd (Global) as his financial agent in November 2015 to
invest funds on his behalf through a Corporate Cash Manager (CCM) account held
with Investec Bank. The written mandate required that all investment instructions
must be sent to a specific fax number or email address with the client’s signature.1
In August 2016, fraudsters hacked Mr Fouché’s Gmail account and sent three
fraudulent emails to Global, instructing it to transfer a total of R804,000 to third-party
accounts at First National Bank. These emails, although sent from Fouché’s
legitimate address, did not include his actual or electronic signature but simply ended
with “Nick” or “Thanks, Nick”.2
Global complied with these fraudulent instructions and released the funds. Mr
Fouché, upon discovering this, denied authorising the payments and sued Global for
breach of mandate. The Gauteng High Court found in his favour, ordering Global to
repay the R804,000 and the costs of the suit. Global appealed the judgment to the
Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA).3
Legal Question
Did Global breach its mandate by relying on fraudulent email instructions that lacked
a proper signature, and was section 13(3) of the Electronic Communications and
Transactions Act 25 of 2002 (ECT Act) applicable in validating those instructions?4
Reasons for the Decision
1
Global & Local Investments Advisors (Pty) Ltd v Fouché [2020] ZASCA 8; 2021 (1) SA 371 (SCA), para [2].
2
Ibid., para [3].
3
Ibid., para [1, 4] .
4
Ibid.
Varsity Cube 2025 +27 81 278 3372
