PVL3702 EXAM PACK 2024

+254792947610




PVL3702
EXAM
PACK 2024
QUESTIONS WITH DETAILED ANSWERS

,PAST EXAM AND ASSIGNMENT QUESTIONS (MCQ)
Question 1

Y and Z reach an agreement that should Y sell his leather couch, he (Y) will offer to sell it to Z
first, before making an offer to sell the couch to any other person. Which statement is
CORRECT?

1. Y and Z concluded an option contract.
2. Y and Z concluded a pre-emption contract.
3. Y and Z concluded neither an option contract nor a pre-emption contract.
4. Y and Z concluded an option contract and a pre-emption contract.
5. Y and Z concluded a contract subject to a resolutive condition. (1)




Question 2

X sells his shop (a business) in a shopping mall to Y. During the negotiations X informs Y of the
overhead costs of running the shop but fails to mention that the rental for the shop space is soon
to escalate dramatically. In fact, the rent will be so high that the shop will scarcely be able to turn
a profit. What cause of action will Y be able to rely on in the circumstances in order to claim
damages?

1. Breach of contract.
2. Unjustified enrichment.
3. The reliance theory.
4. Material mistake.
5. Culpable misrepresentation. (1)




Question 3

Cedric has joined a religious sect. Recently this sect took advantage of Cedric’s good nature and
convinced him to donate his motor vehicle to the sect, which Cedric did. Cedric approaches you
for legal advice, explaining that he wants his motor vehicle returned to him. The issue emanating
from these facts relates to

1. duress.
2. undue influence.
3. commercial bribery.

2

, 4. puffs.
5. dicta et promissa. (1)



Question 4

Assume the same facts as in question 3. A court presiding over this case is likely to find that the
religious sect

1. threatened Cedric and more particularly his property.
2. instilled reasonable fear in Cedric.
3. coerced Cedric to donate his motor vehicle to the sect.
4. obtained an influence over Cedric, and that this influence weakened his powers of
resistance and rendered his will compliant.
5. conducted itself in such an unconscionable manner that it amounts to supervening
impossibility of performance. (1)




Question 5

Y is a trusted employee of ABC Company and is able to influence the managing director of ABC
Company. X bribes Y with R10 000 to influence the managing director to conclude a contract on
behalf of ABC Company with X to the benefit of X. The contract between the X and the ABC
Company is

1. voidable at the instance of ABC company.
2. void.
3. valid, but unenforceable by X.
4. valid, but ABC Company may definitely claim contractual damages from X.
5. valid, but ABC Company may definitely claim delictual damages from X. (1)




Question 6

Assume the same facts as in question 5. The agreement between X and Y is

1. voidable at the instance of X.
2. void.
3. valid, but unenforceable.
4. valid, but X may claim contractual damages from Y.
3

, 5. valid, but Y may claim delictual damages from X. (1)




Question 7

X and Y conclude a contract, in terms of which X rents a house from Y for a period of six months.
The contract is subject to a

1. suspensive condition.
2. resolutive condition.
3. suspensive time clause.
4. resolutive time clause.
5. modus. (1)




Question 8

X promises to give Y R10 000 if Y successfully climbs the Devils Tooth in the Drakensberg. This
is an obligation subject to a

1. suspensive time clause.
2. resolutive time clause.
3. suspensive condition.
4. resolutive condition.
5. modus. (1)




Question 9

X undertakes to donate R100 000 to Y on 5 December 2020. This donation is subject to a

1. suspensive condition.
2. resolutive condition.
3. modal clause (modus).
4. suspensive time clause.
5. the ex turpi rule and stipulatio alteri. (1)




4