PVL3702
EXAM PACK
, lOMoARcPSD|18222662
Page 7 of 9
PVL3702
May / June 2025
QUESTION 1
The Will Theory reflects a subjective approach to the formation of a contract, which is based
solely on consensus. For a valid contract to be concluded with reference to this theory, there
should be evidence of ‘subjective consensus’ between all the parties. One element of subjective
consensus is that the parties must seriously intend to contract. Briefly explain the other
elements of ‘subjective consensus’. Do not discuss the requirements for a valid offer and a
valid acceptance for this question. [10]
QUESTION 2
Discuss ‘common mistake’ in the law of contract and refer to case law. [10]
QUESTION 3
Mia is interested in purchasing John’s Volvo car, which is a 2023 model. This Volvo is a modern
version of a fully electric car which is powered by a battery, and it does not operate on petrol or
diesel. Mia is impressed with the car and feels that she will definitely save on fuel costs; so, she
concludes a contract of sale for the Volvo with John. The purchase price paid to John is
R500 000. After receiving this payment, the car is registered in Mia’s name. During the
negotiations, prior to concluding the contract of sale, Mia asked John how many kilometers the
Volvo could travel if the battery is fully charged, as this was very important to her. John
responded that the car would travel for a minimum of 1500 kilometers before the battery would
need to be re-charged. However, John knew that the car could only travel for 700 kilometers on
a fully charged battery, but he deliberately misled Mia in order to get a better price for the Volvo.
After driving the car for a period of two months, Mia realises that the car can only travel for a
maximum of 700 kilometers on a full charge. After making enquiries with Volvo South Africa,
she learns that her findings are correct. Assume that John’s representation that the car could
travel for 1500 kilometers when the battery is fully charged is not a term of the contract between
the parties. The market value of the car is R375 000. Had Mia known that the performance of
the battery cannot exceed 700 kilometers when fully charged, she would still have purchased
the car, but would only have been prepared to pay R400 000. Advise Mia fully on the type of
misrepresentation that she can rely on and, based on this cause of action, what amount
of damages (if any) can she claim from John. Assume that none of the parties made a
material mistake. Do not apply the direct reliance theory or the iustus error doctrine to this
question. Do not discuss latent defects or breach of contract, instead your main focus must be
on the pre-contractual representation that John made to Mia. Also, do not apply the Consumer
Protection Act 68 of 2008 to this question. [20]
, lOMoARcPSD|18222662
Page 8 of 9
PVL3702
May / June 2025
QUESTION 4
X owns a hardware business which sells paint. Y is employed at X’s hardware store. Z
approaches Y and asks him to persuade X to buy Z’s paint products in bulk. The quality of the
paint that Z produces is not of the best quality, but Z knows because of the close relationship
that Y has with X, Y will be able to persuade X to conclude a contract with Z. Z agrees to pay Y
a reward of R50 000 if the contract is concluded between X and Z. Y agrees to this arrangement
and succeeds in persuading X to conclude a contract with Z to purchase Z’s paint products for
the sum of R900 000. Y knew that the quality of the paint produced by Z is of an inferior quality.
4.1 After X concluded the contract with Z, X learns of the arrangement Y and Z had. He
approaches you for legal advice because he wants to cancel the contract, he concluded with Z.
Advise X fully on the appropriate cause of action that can be relied on, and if a suitable
remedy is available to him in such a situation. Refer to case law in your answer. Do not
discuss misrepresentation for this question, and do not apply the Consumer Protection Act 68 of
2008 to this question. [10]
4.2 Y wants to enforce the contract between him and Z for the R50 000 reward because Z is
refusing to pay him (Y) the reward amount. Discuss fully the legality aspect relating to this
contract, and advise whether Y is likely to succeed with his claim for R50 000 against Z.
Refer to case law. Do not apply the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008. [10]
QUESTION 5
The driver of Denson Contractors (Pty) Ltd (“Denson”) drives the company’s bakkie to visit Ace
Hardware (Pty) Ltd (“Ace Hardware”) to purchase paint which Denson ordered from Ace
Hardware. At the entrance of the Ace Hardware premises is a massive notice board with huge
writing that excludes all liability on the part of Ace Hardware for any injury to any person or
entity, as well as damage caused to the property of any person or entity, whilst being on the
premises of Ace Hardware, arising from any form of negligence of Ace Hardware's employees.
The driver from Denson was talking on his cell phone when he drove into the premises of Ace
Hardware. As a result, he did not see the massive notice board. He parked Denson’s bakkie in
the parking area and walked into the hardware store. When he returned to the parking area, he
found that the Denson bakkie was damaged. Ace Hardware apologised for the damage caused
to the bakkie as one of its employees accidentally and negligently reversed into the Denson
bakkie, whilst driving a vehicle owned by Ace Hardware. Denson seeks to claim damages from
Ace Hardware for the damages to its bakkie. However, Ace Hardware believes that the notice
board indemnified it from the damage caused to the bakkie. Discuss fully and advise Ace
Hardware if it will be held liable to pay for the repairs to Denson’s bakkie. Assume that the
Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 does not apply to this scenario because the annual
turnover of both parties exceeds the threshold for this Act to apply. Also, do not discuss the law
of delict for this question. [20]
, lOMoARcPSD|18222662
Page 9 of 9
PVL3702
May / June 2025
QUESTION 6
Milo concluded a contract with Senzo wherein the parties agreed that Milo will build a swimming
pool for Senzo at his place of residence. The parties also agreed that after Milo has built the
swimming pool to completion, then Senzo will pay him the price agreed to, which is R100 000.
Senzo considered this a bargain since other contractors quoted him R200 000 for the same job.
After completing 90% of the work, Milo informs Senzo that he will definitely not complete the job
because his business is closing down due to the tough economic conditions that are being
experienced, and he is also unable to pay his staff their wages. Consequently, Senzo paid
Themba R25 000 to finish building the swimming pool. Senzo and his family began enjoying the
use of the pool. Senzo decides not to pay Milo because he (Milo) did not complete the job which
he was contractually obliged to do. Advise Milo on the relevant legal remedy (if any) he may
pursue against Senzo to recover payment for the work that he did. Discuss fully and refer
to case law. Note that Senzo did not commit breach of contract for refusing to pay Milo. Do not
discuss quantum meruit. Also do not discuss supervening impossibility of performance. And do
not apply the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008. [20]
TOTAL:[100]
©
UNISA 2025
EXAM PACK
, lOMoARcPSD|18222662
Page 7 of 9
PVL3702
May / June 2025
QUESTION 1
The Will Theory reflects a subjective approach to the formation of a contract, which is based
solely on consensus. For a valid contract to be concluded with reference to this theory, there
should be evidence of ‘subjective consensus’ between all the parties. One element of subjective
consensus is that the parties must seriously intend to contract. Briefly explain the other
elements of ‘subjective consensus’. Do not discuss the requirements for a valid offer and a
valid acceptance for this question. [10]
QUESTION 2
Discuss ‘common mistake’ in the law of contract and refer to case law. [10]
QUESTION 3
Mia is interested in purchasing John’s Volvo car, which is a 2023 model. This Volvo is a modern
version of a fully electric car which is powered by a battery, and it does not operate on petrol or
diesel. Mia is impressed with the car and feels that she will definitely save on fuel costs; so, she
concludes a contract of sale for the Volvo with John. The purchase price paid to John is
R500 000. After receiving this payment, the car is registered in Mia’s name. During the
negotiations, prior to concluding the contract of sale, Mia asked John how many kilometers the
Volvo could travel if the battery is fully charged, as this was very important to her. John
responded that the car would travel for a minimum of 1500 kilometers before the battery would
need to be re-charged. However, John knew that the car could only travel for 700 kilometers on
a fully charged battery, but he deliberately misled Mia in order to get a better price for the Volvo.
After driving the car for a period of two months, Mia realises that the car can only travel for a
maximum of 700 kilometers on a full charge. After making enquiries with Volvo South Africa,
she learns that her findings are correct. Assume that John’s representation that the car could
travel for 1500 kilometers when the battery is fully charged is not a term of the contract between
the parties. The market value of the car is R375 000. Had Mia known that the performance of
the battery cannot exceed 700 kilometers when fully charged, she would still have purchased
the car, but would only have been prepared to pay R400 000. Advise Mia fully on the type of
misrepresentation that she can rely on and, based on this cause of action, what amount
of damages (if any) can she claim from John. Assume that none of the parties made a
material mistake. Do not apply the direct reliance theory or the iustus error doctrine to this
question. Do not discuss latent defects or breach of contract, instead your main focus must be
on the pre-contractual representation that John made to Mia. Also, do not apply the Consumer
Protection Act 68 of 2008 to this question. [20]
, lOMoARcPSD|18222662
Page 8 of 9
PVL3702
May / June 2025
QUESTION 4
X owns a hardware business which sells paint. Y is employed at X’s hardware store. Z
approaches Y and asks him to persuade X to buy Z’s paint products in bulk. The quality of the
paint that Z produces is not of the best quality, but Z knows because of the close relationship
that Y has with X, Y will be able to persuade X to conclude a contract with Z. Z agrees to pay Y
a reward of R50 000 if the contract is concluded between X and Z. Y agrees to this arrangement
and succeeds in persuading X to conclude a contract with Z to purchase Z’s paint products for
the sum of R900 000. Y knew that the quality of the paint produced by Z is of an inferior quality.
4.1 After X concluded the contract with Z, X learns of the arrangement Y and Z had. He
approaches you for legal advice because he wants to cancel the contract, he concluded with Z.
Advise X fully on the appropriate cause of action that can be relied on, and if a suitable
remedy is available to him in such a situation. Refer to case law in your answer. Do not
discuss misrepresentation for this question, and do not apply the Consumer Protection Act 68 of
2008 to this question. [10]
4.2 Y wants to enforce the contract between him and Z for the R50 000 reward because Z is
refusing to pay him (Y) the reward amount. Discuss fully the legality aspect relating to this
contract, and advise whether Y is likely to succeed with his claim for R50 000 against Z.
Refer to case law. Do not apply the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008. [10]
QUESTION 5
The driver of Denson Contractors (Pty) Ltd (“Denson”) drives the company’s bakkie to visit Ace
Hardware (Pty) Ltd (“Ace Hardware”) to purchase paint which Denson ordered from Ace
Hardware. At the entrance of the Ace Hardware premises is a massive notice board with huge
writing that excludes all liability on the part of Ace Hardware for any injury to any person or
entity, as well as damage caused to the property of any person or entity, whilst being on the
premises of Ace Hardware, arising from any form of negligence of Ace Hardware's employees.
The driver from Denson was talking on his cell phone when he drove into the premises of Ace
Hardware. As a result, he did not see the massive notice board. He parked Denson’s bakkie in
the parking area and walked into the hardware store. When he returned to the parking area, he
found that the Denson bakkie was damaged. Ace Hardware apologised for the damage caused
to the bakkie as one of its employees accidentally and negligently reversed into the Denson
bakkie, whilst driving a vehicle owned by Ace Hardware. Denson seeks to claim damages from
Ace Hardware for the damages to its bakkie. However, Ace Hardware believes that the notice
board indemnified it from the damage caused to the bakkie. Discuss fully and advise Ace
Hardware if it will be held liable to pay for the repairs to Denson’s bakkie. Assume that the
Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 does not apply to this scenario because the annual
turnover of both parties exceeds the threshold for this Act to apply. Also, do not discuss the law
of delict for this question. [20]
, lOMoARcPSD|18222662
Page 9 of 9
PVL3702
May / June 2025
QUESTION 6
Milo concluded a contract with Senzo wherein the parties agreed that Milo will build a swimming
pool for Senzo at his place of residence. The parties also agreed that after Milo has built the
swimming pool to completion, then Senzo will pay him the price agreed to, which is R100 000.
Senzo considered this a bargain since other contractors quoted him R200 000 for the same job.
After completing 90% of the work, Milo informs Senzo that he will definitely not complete the job
because his business is closing down due to the tough economic conditions that are being
experienced, and he is also unable to pay his staff their wages. Consequently, Senzo paid
Themba R25 000 to finish building the swimming pool. Senzo and his family began enjoying the
use of the pool. Senzo decides not to pay Milo because he (Milo) did not complete the job which
he was contractually obliged to do. Advise Milo on the relevant legal remedy (if any) he may
pursue against Senzo to recover payment for the work that he did. Discuss fully and refer
to case law. Note that Senzo did not commit breach of contract for refusing to pay Milo. Do not
discuss quantum meruit. Also do not discuss supervening impossibility of performance. And do
not apply the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008. [20]
TOTAL:[100]
©
UNISA 2025
