PVL3702
Assignment 1
Unique Number: 618200
The facts seem to indicate that Carol and Jane may not have reached real
consensus based on the theory of will because Carol sent the acceptance letter to
the wrong person. Carol accidentally sent Jane the acceptance letter as she planned
to hire someone else. So, it's about the error and the application of Justus' error
doctrine.
An error is a Justus error if it is substantial and reasonable (Hutchison and Pretorius
Contract 99).
Justus's doctrine of error has two requirements: the error must be material (an
application of the theory of will) and reasonable (an indirect application of the theory
of trust). Since Carol, as a contract refuser, believes that a valid contract has not
been concluded, she must prove both requirements for the contract to be declared
null and void. If you do not do this, the contract is valid and legally binding.
Carol accidentally sent Jane the acceptance letter as she planned to hire someone
else. Therefore, the question arises whether this error on Carol's part material is and
reasonable in the sense of Justus' error doctrine. because there is an error as to the
identity of the parties with whom Carol intended to contract (an error in Persona)
(Hutchison and Pretorius Contract 88). Carol's error was significant because she
accidentally accepted the offer of one party (Jane) when she intended to accept the
offer of an entirely different party (Portia).
The facts in this issue are similar to the facts at home and overseas Distributors
Corporation (Pty) Ltd v Potato Board 1958(2) SA 473(A) where In, the Appellate
Division found the error to be material.
Carol's error relates to a personal error. In these types of errors, where one party
intends to accept one party's offer but mistakenly accepts another party's offer, such
error is often material. Such was the case in Kok v. Osborne, in which a party erred
as to the identity of the party or parties with which it contracted, and the court ruled
that its error was material.
In National and Overseas Distributors Corporation (Pty) Ltd v Potato Board a
Company erroneously sent an acceptance letter to the wrong bidder because it
intended to accept another bidder's bid and such an error was considered material.
The question now is whether the mistake was reasonable. In National and Overseas
Distributors Corporation (Pty) Ltd v. Potato Board 1958(2) SA 473(A), in similar
circumstances, the court ruled that the defaulter's error was unreasonable
(Hutchison and Pretorius Contract 98-99). Additionally, error does not fall into any of
the recognized categories of reasonable errors (Hutchison and Pretorius Contract
100-103).
The doctrine requires that one of the parties reasonably assume that the other party
consented to the formation of the contract and that this belief must have been
Assignment 1
Unique Number: 618200
The facts seem to indicate that Carol and Jane may not have reached real
consensus based on the theory of will because Carol sent the acceptance letter to
the wrong person. Carol accidentally sent Jane the acceptance letter as she planned
to hire someone else. So, it's about the error and the application of Justus' error
doctrine.
An error is a Justus error if it is substantial and reasonable (Hutchison and Pretorius
Contract 99).
Justus's doctrine of error has two requirements: the error must be material (an
application of the theory of will) and reasonable (an indirect application of the theory
of trust). Since Carol, as a contract refuser, believes that a valid contract has not
been concluded, she must prove both requirements for the contract to be declared
null and void. If you do not do this, the contract is valid and legally binding.
Carol accidentally sent Jane the acceptance letter as she planned to hire someone
else. Therefore, the question arises whether this error on Carol's part material is and
reasonable in the sense of Justus' error doctrine. because there is an error as to the
identity of the parties with whom Carol intended to contract (an error in Persona)
(Hutchison and Pretorius Contract 88). Carol's error was significant because she
accidentally accepted the offer of one party (Jane) when she intended to accept the
offer of an entirely different party (Portia).
The facts in this issue are similar to the facts at home and overseas Distributors
Corporation (Pty) Ltd v Potato Board 1958(2) SA 473(A) where In, the Appellate
Division found the error to be material.
Carol's error relates to a personal error. In these types of errors, where one party
intends to accept one party's offer but mistakenly accepts another party's offer, such
error is often material. Such was the case in Kok v. Osborne, in which a party erred
as to the identity of the party or parties with which it contracted, and the court ruled
that its error was material.
In National and Overseas Distributors Corporation (Pty) Ltd v Potato Board a
Company erroneously sent an acceptance letter to the wrong bidder because it
intended to accept another bidder's bid and such an error was considered material.
The question now is whether the mistake was reasonable. In National and Overseas
Distributors Corporation (Pty) Ltd v. Potato Board 1958(2) SA 473(A), in similar
circumstances, the court ruled that the defaulter's error was unreasonable
(Hutchison and Pretorius Contract 98-99). Additionally, error does not fall into any of
the recognized categories of reasonable errors (Hutchison and Pretorius Contract
100-103).
The doctrine requires that one of the parties reasonably assume that the other party
consented to the formation of the contract and that this belief must have been
