Pvl3702 Exam QUALITY ANSWERS 25 Oct 2024 exam elaborate

QUESTION 3 Jack offers to sell his 2012 Honda Ballade to Jane for R100 000. Jane asks Jack to give her some time to decide if she wants to purchase the car, and Jack agrees. In this regard, on 1 July both parties agree that Jane will be given 30 days to decide whether she wants to purchase the car. On 15 July, Jane meets Jack, and she informs Jack that she accepts his offer. Jack responds that he has decided not to sell the car and that he will be keeping it, as his dad gave it to him and as such it is of sentimental value to him. Jane approaches you for legal advice. Critically analyse the facts and fully advise her if a preliminary legally binding contract (pacta de contrahendo) was concluded between both parties. Furthermore, advise Jane fully whether a contract of sale was concluded between the parties. Discuss fully and also use the legal principles relating to offer and acceptance to assist you in your analysis. Do not apply the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008. [20]QUESTION 4 Cyber International (Pty) Ltd (“Cyber”) concluded a nine-year lease agreement with Fibre Logistics (Pty) Ltd (“Fibre”), for premises in Cape Town, wherein Cyber is the lessee and Fibre is the lessor (owner of the premises). The lease agreement has been operating for three years and the parties have decided to sign an addendum to this lease agreement to cater for new matters such as the installation of air conditioning in the leased premises. Fibre’s attorney drafted the addendum wherein he mistakenly shortened the original lease period from nine years to six years. Fibre’s authorised representative saw the mistake and did not say a word when he signed the addendum. Cyber’s authorised representative signed the addendum without knowing that the lease period was shortened in this document. Fibre stood to gain from a shortened lease period because a recent property boom in the area meant that a higher rental could be achieved for the premises in comparison to the rental that was agreed to with Cyber. Apply the will theory and the direct reliance theory and advise Cyber whether the signed addendum by both parties constitutes a legally binding contract. Discuss fully and refer to case law. Do not apply the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008. [20] [20] QUESTION 5 The Ultimate Fight (Pty) Ltd (“the company”) hosts boxing matches wherein people who have serious disagreements on online social media platforms are invited to settle their differences in a boxing ring. This company generates monetary profits and fame by hosting these boxing contests. Often the participants get badly hurt as the intention is to inflict bodily harm in these events. Recently the company engaged with Otis and Frank to participate in a boxing match as both adults have been having verbal altercations and feuds on social media and the company thought it was time to invite them into the boxing ring to settle their differences physically. Subsequently, the company concluded a contract with Frank which included a term wherein the parties agreed that for Frank to participate he must pay the company R50 000 and if he wins the boxing match against Otis, the R50 000 will be returned to him and in addition to this, the company will also pay him a further R50 000 for his victory. The contract further provided that if Frank lost the match, he agrees to forfeit the R50 000 to the company. Frank paid the R50 000 to the company and contested the boxing match with Otis. Unfortunately for Frank, he lost the boxing match. In accordance with the South African Boxing Act 12 of 2004, it is illegal to promote and host boxing matches without obtaining a license from the Minister of Sports and Recreational Events. This Act also provides that a contract concluded by any entity with a person to participate in a boxing match is illegal and is deemed void if that entity does not have the requisite license to promote and host boxing matches. The company was operating this business without a license even though the director’s knew that a license was required. Because the director’s felt that the Minister will not grant the company the license for various reasons, they decided to host the boxing matches for as long as possible, as the business was very profitable. At the time of concluding the contract with the company, Frank was only 19 years old, having recently completed high school. He was young and not aware of statutory legislation that regulated boxing as a sport, and he did not know that it was illegal to conclude the contract to participate in the boxing match against Otis. Frank approaches you for legal advice as he wants to claim back the R50 000 he paid to the company. Discuss fully if he willsucceed with such a claim. Refer to case law in your answer. Do not discuss whether the term in the contract was unfair to enforce. Do not apply the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008. [20] QUESTION 6 Thabo has contracted with Sipho to build a perimeter wall at his house, for R100 000. In terms of the contract, Sipho must have the wall completely built by 10 March, and after doing so, Thabo must pay Sipho R100 000. After building 80% of the wall on 7 March, Sipho’s workers go on strike, and on 20 March, Sipho informs Thabo that the strike appears to be indefinite, therefore he (Sipho) will definitely not be returning to complete building the wall. Thabo then hires Romano who completes the building of the wall at a cost of R30 000. Sipho approaches you for legal advice as Thabo is refusing to pay him for the work that he has already done with the wall at Thabo’s house. Advise Sipho if he can recover any amount from Thabo, and if so, on what basis. Discuss fully and refer to case law to substantiate your legal advice to Sipho. Note that Thabo did not commit breach of contract by refusing to pay Sipho. Do not apply the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008. [20]