CLA1502
Assignment 1 Semester 1 2026
Unique number:
Due Date: 2026
QUESTION 1
1.1.
Under South African common law, a seller in a contract of sale gives an implied undertaking
that the purchaser will not be disturbed in her possession and enjoyment of the merx by a
third party who has a better legal title to the property. This undertaking exists automatically
in every contract of sale and does not need to be expressly stated by the parties (Kelbrick et
al., 2020).
This implied undertaking is known as the seller’s warranty against eviction. It means that
the seller guarantees that the purchaser will have undisturbed and lawful possession of the
thing sold. If a third party with a superior legal right claims the merx, the seller has a duty to
assist the purchaser in defending that claim (Kelbrick et al., 2020).
Terms of use
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document as a guide for learning, comparison and reference purpose,
Terms of use
Not to duplicate, reproduce and/or misrepresent the contents of this document as your own work,
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document
Fully accept the consequences
solely as a guide forshould you plagiarise
learning, reference,or and
misuse this document.
comparison purposes,
Ensure originality of your own work, and fully accept the consequences should you plagiarise or misuse this document.
Comply with all relevant standards, guidelines, regulations, and legislation governing academic and written work.
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is" without any express or
implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or liability for any actions taken based on the
information contained within this document. This document is intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes.
Reproduction, resale, or transmission of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
, +27 81 278 3372
QUESTION 1
1.1.
Under South African common law, a seller in a contract of sale gives an implied
undertaking that the purchaser will not be disturbed in her possession and enjoyment of
the merx by a third party who has a better legal title to the property. This undertaking
exists automatically in every contract of sale and does not need to be expressly stated by
the parties (Kelbrick et al., 2020).
This implied undertaking is known as the seller’s warranty against eviction. It means that
the seller guarantees that the purchaser will have undisturbed and lawful possession of
the thing sold. If a third party with a superior legal right claims the merx, the seller has a
duty to assist the purchaser in defending that claim (Kelbrick et al., 2020).
If the purchaser is sued by a third party claiming ownership, the purchaser must notify the
seller and call upon the seller to defend the action. The seller is then obliged to step in and
assist in protecting the purchaser’s possession. If the seller fails to assist and the
purchaser is evicted because the third party proves a better title, the seller is in breach of
the warranty against eviction (Kelbrick et al., 2020).
Even where the seller does not assist, the purchaser must still put up a proper and
competent defence against the third party’s claim. If the purchaser fails to defend the claim
properly, the seller may not be held liable (Kelbrick et al., 2020).
1.2
In South African law, ownership of movable property does not pass automatically upon
conclusion of a contract of sale. Certain legal requirements must be satisfied before
ownership can be transferred.
Firstly, there must be a valid underlying contract, such as a valid contract of sale. This
provides the legal cause for the transfer of ownership. Without a valid agreement,
ownership cannot pass because there would be no lawful basis for the transfer (Kelbrick et
al., 2020).
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is"
without any express or implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or
liability for any actions taken based on the information contained within this document. This document is
intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes. Reproduction, resale, or transmission
of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
Assignment 1 Semester 1 2026
Unique number:
Due Date: 2026
QUESTION 1
1.1.
Under South African common law, a seller in a contract of sale gives an implied undertaking
that the purchaser will not be disturbed in her possession and enjoyment of the merx by a
third party who has a better legal title to the property. This undertaking exists automatically
in every contract of sale and does not need to be expressly stated by the parties (Kelbrick et
al., 2020).
This implied undertaking is known as the seller’s warranty against eviction. It means that
the seller guarantees that the purchaser will have undisturbed and lawful possession of the
thing sold. If a third party with a superior legal right claims the merx, the seller has a duty to
assist the purchaser in defending that claim (Kelbrick et al., 2020).
Terms of use
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document as a guide for learning, comparison and reference purpose,
Terms of use
Not to duplicate, reproduce and/or misrepresent the contents of this document as your own work,
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document
Fully accept the consequences
solely as a guide forshould you plagiarise
learning, reference,or and
misuse this document.
comparison purposes,
Ensure originality of your own work, and fully accept the consequences should you plagiarise or misuse this document.
Comply with all relevant standards, guidelines, regulations, and legislation governing academic and written work.
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is" without any express or
implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or liability for any actions taken based on the
information contained within this document. This document is intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes.
Reproduction, resale, or transmission of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
, +27 81 278 3372
QUESTION 1
1.1.
Under South African common law, a seller in a contract of sale gives an implied
undertaking that the purchaser will not be disturbed in her possession and enjoyment of
the merx by a third party who has a better legal title to the property. This undertaking
exists automatically in every contract of sale and does not need to be expressly stated by
the parties (Kelbrick et al., 2020).
This implied undertaking is known as the seller’s warranty against eviction. It means that
the seller guarantees that the purchaser will have undisturbed and lawful possession of
the thing sold. If a third party with a superior legal right claims the merx, the seller has a
duty to assist the purchaser in defending that claim (Kelbrick et al., 2020).
If the purchaser is sued by a third party claiming ownership, the purchaser must notify the
seller and call upon the seller to defend the action. The seller is then obliged to step in and
assist in protecting the purchaser’s possession. If the seller fails to assist and the
purchaser is evicted because the third party proves a better title, the seller is in breach of
the warranty against eviction (Kelbrick et al., 2020).
Even where the seller does not assist, the purchaser must still put up a proper and
competent defence against the third party’s claim. If the purchaser fails to defend the claim
properly, the seller may not be held liable (Kelbrick et al., 2020).
1.2
In South African law, ownership of movable property does not pass automatically upon
conclusion of a contract of sale. Certain legal requirements must be satisfied before
ownership can be transferred.
Firstly, there must be a valid underlying contract, such as a valid contract of sale. This
provides the legal cause for the transfer of ownership. Without a valid agreement,
ownership cannot pass because there would be no lawful basis for the transfer (Kelbrick et
al., 2020).
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is"
without any express or implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or
liability for any actions taken based on the information contained within this document. This document is
intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes. Reproduction, resale, or transmission
of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
