PVL3702 ASSIGNMENT 1 MEMO - SEMESTER 1 - 2024 - UNISA - DUE : 25 MARCH 2024 (DETAILED ANSWERS WITH FOOTNOTES - DISTINCTION GUARANTEED)

PVL3702 ASSIGNMENT 1 MEMO - SEMESTER 1 - 2024 - UNISA - DUE : 25 MARCH 2024 (DETAILED ANSWERS WITH FOOTNOTES - DISTINCTION GUARANTEED) ASSIGNMENT 01 QUESTION: Jack is a property developer who is well known for building residential developments. He recently built cluster homes in an upmarket suburb in Cape Town. All the cluster homes are built with the same size and layout, and they only differ with the positioning of each cluster in the complex. This development is brand new, and Jack appoints Sandy as his estate agent to market the sale of the cluster homes. Sandy shows Gloria a beautiful cluster home in the complex, which is next to the guardhouse at the entrance of the complex. Gloria immediately falls in love with this cluster home and a few days later she signs the offer to purchase document presented to her by Sandy, who completed all the relevant details on the document relating to the description of the property. The document is later also signed by Jack as the seller. However, it subsequently turns out that the cluster home referred to in the signed document is not the one that Gloria viewed and fell in love with. The one she signed for and the one she viewed are different properties. In fact, the cluster home she signed for is right at the back of the complex, which is not in the best position in the complex. Jack is of the view that a legally binding contract was concluded with Gloria, in accordance with the written signed document, for the cluster home described in this document. Gloria approaches you for legal advice as she thought that she was signing for the cluster home that was next to the guardhouse at the entrance of the complex. Apply the will theory and the iustus error doctrine and advise Gloria whether she concluded a legally binding contract with Jack, based on the written document that they both signed, for the cluster home described in this document. Discuss fully and refer to case law in your answer. Do not apply the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008. [10]