PVL3702 Assignment 1 Semester 2 2023
, QUESTION 1 (4 DIFFERENT ANSWERS PROVIDED)
The iustus error doctrine, also known as the justifiable error doctrine, is a
principle that allows a party to avoid a contract if they can show that
they made a genuine mistake that a reasonable person would have made
under the circumstances. In order for the doctrine to apply, the mistake
must be material, meaning that it goes to the root of the contract.
In this case, Carol mistakenly accepted Jane's offer instead of Portia's.
The question is whether this mistake can be considered a material one
that would allow Carol to avoid the contract.
To determine if the mistake is material, it is necessary to consider the
terms of the advertisement and the actions of the parties. The
advertisement stated that the bike was limited edition and invited the
public to make offers. It did not specify any particular criteria for
accepting offers or indicate that the highest offer would be accepted.
In the case of Raffles v Wichelhaus (1864), the court found that a
contract could be avoided when both parties were referring to different
ships, even though they used the same name. This case established the
principle that parties must have a mutual understanding of the subject
matter of the contract.
Applying this principle to the current case, it can be argued that Carol's
mistake in accepting Jane's offer instead of Portia's is a material one. Both
parties had submitted written offers for the limited-edition bicycle, and
Carol incorrectly accepted an offer from someone other than the intended
buyer. This mistake goes to the root of the contract as it involves the
identity of the party that Carol intended to enter into a contract with.
Therefore, it can be argued that an enforceable contract was not
concluded between Carol and Jane. Carol's mistake was material, and
under the iustus error doctrine, she should be allowed to avoid the
contract.
It is important to note that the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 was
not applied in this answer, as specified in the question. This Act may
provide additional rights and remedies for consumers in a similar
situation.
, QUESTION 1 (4 DIFFERENT ANSWERS PROVIDED)
The iustus error doctrine, also known as the justifiable error doctrine, is a
principle that allows a party to avoid a contract if they can show that
they made a genuine mistake that a reasonable person would have made
under the circumstances. In order for the doctrine to apply, the mistake
must be material, meaning that it goes to the root of the contract.
In this case, Carol mistakenly accepted Jane's offer instead of Portia's.
The question is whether this mistake can be considered a material one
that would allow Carol to avoid the contract.
To determine if the mistake is material, it is necessary to consider the
terms of the advertisement and the actions of the parties. The
advertisement stated that the bike was limited edition and invited the
public to make offers. It did not specify any particular criteria for
accepting offers or indicate that the highest offer would be accepted.
In the case of Raffles v Wichelhaus (1864), the court found that a
contract could be avoided when both parties were referring to different
ships, even though they used the same name. This case established the
principle that parties must have a mutual understanding of the subject
matter of the contract.
Applying this principle to the current case, it can be argued that Carol's
mistake in accepting Jane's offer instead of Portia's is a material one. Both
parties had submitted written offers for the limited-edition bicycle, and
Carol incorrectly accepted an offer from someone other than the intended
buyer. This mistake goes to the root of the contract as it involves the
identity of the party that Carol intended to enter into a contract with.
Therefore, it can be argued that an enforceable contract was not
concluded between Carol and Jane. Carol's mistake was material, and
under the iustus error doctrine, she should be allowed to avoid the
contract.
It is important to note that the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 was
not applied in this answer, as specified in the question. This Act may
provide additional rights and remedies for consumers in a similar
situation.
