PVL3702
Assignment 1 Semester 2 2025
2 2025 148712
Unique Number:
Due date: 26 August 2025
3 ANSWERS PROVIDED
The core issue to determine is whether the failure of the seller's authorised representative to
sign the ‘Contract of Sale’ document constituted non-compliance with a prescribed mode of
acceptance, and if so, whether a valid contract was concluded.
In South African contract law, for a contract to be valid, certain essential requirements must
be met, one of which is consensus or agreement between the parties on all material terms,
including the manner in which the contract is concluded and accepted.1 When parties agree
that a contract will only become binding once it is reduced to writing and signed by both
parties, that signed document constitutes the prescribed mode of acceptance.1
DISCLAIMER & TERMS OF USE
Educational Aid: These study notes are intended to be used as educational resources and should not be seen as a
replacement for individual research, critical analysis, or professional consultation. Students are encouraged to perform
their own research and seek advice from their instructors or academic advisors for specific assignment guidelines.
Personal Responsibility: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information in
these study notes, the seller does not guarantee the completeness or correctness of all content. The buyer is
responsible for verifying the accuracy of the information and exercising their own judgment when applying it to their
assignments.
Academic Integrity: It is essential for students to maintain academic integrity and follow their institution's policies
regarding plagiarism, citation, and referencing. These study notes should be used as learning tools and sources of
inspiration. Any direct reproduction of the content without proper citation and acknowledgment may be considered
academic misconduct.
Limited Liability: The seller shall not be liable for any direct or indirect damages, losses, or consequences arising from
the use of these notes. This includes, but is not limited to, poor academic performance, penalties, or any other negative
consequences resulting from the application or misuse of the information provided.
, For additional support +27 81 278 3372
3 ANSWERS PROVIDED
The central issue in this matter is whether a valid contract of sale was concluded
between Shane and Porsche Johannesburg, despite the failure of the seller’s
authorised representative to sign the ‘Contract of Sale’ document. The crux lies in
whether the mode of acceptance was properly complied with and whether such
compliance was essential for the conclusion of the contract.
In contract law, acceptance must be clear, unambiguous, and communicated to the
offeror in a manner prescribed by the offer or required by law for the contract to
come into effect. If a specific mode of acceptance is prescribed—such as signing a
written agreement—it must be complied with for the contract to be valid, unless the
parties intended otherwise or the formalities were merely for evidential purposes
rather than validity.1
In the present case, the contract explicitly provided a space for the seller’s
authorised representative to sign the agreement, which may indicate that the parties
intended for the contract to be concluded only once both parties had signed. This
interpretation aligns with the principles established in Goldblatt v Fremantle, where
the court held that no binding contract came into existence because the parties had
agreed that their agreement would only be valid once reduced to writing and signed
by both sides.2
If the signature of the seller’s representative was intended as a prescribed mode of
acceptance, then the absence of such a signature means that acceptance did not
comply with the required formality. As a result, no binding contract was formed, even
if Shane had already fulfilled his payment obligations and the dealership proceeded
with the order process. The court in Goldblatt v Fremantle emphasized that the
parties’ intention regarding formality is decisive. Therefore, if they intended that no
agreement would be binding until signed by both parties, the absence of the seller’s
signature is fatal to contract formation.3
However, if it can be shown that the requirement for the seller’s signature was only
for evidential purposes and not for the validity of the agreement, then the failure to
1
Hutchison & Pretorius (eds) The Law of Contract in South Africa 4ed (2022) at 80.
2
Goldblatt v Fremantle 1920 AD 123.
3
Hutchison & Pretorius (2022) at 82.
Assignment 1 Semester 2 2025
2 2025 148712
Unique Number:
Due date: 26 August 2025
3 ANSWERS PROVIDED
The core issue to determine is whether the failure of the seller's authorised representative to
sign the ‘Contract of Sale’ document constituted non-compliance with a prescribed mode of
acceptance, and if so, whether a valid contract was concluded.
In South African contract law, for a contract to be valid, certain essential requirements must
be met, one of which is consensus or agreement between the parties on all material terms,
including the manner in which the contract is concluded and accepted.1 When parties agree
that a contract will only become binding once it is reduced to writing and signed by both
parties, that signed document constitutes the prescribed mode of acceptance.1
DISCLAIMER & TERMS OF USE
Educational Aid: These study notes are intended to be used as educational resources and should not be seen as a
replacement for individual research, critical analysis, or professional consultation. Students are encouraged to perform
their own research and seek advice from their instructors or academic advisors for specific assignment guidelines.
Personal Responsibility: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information in
these study notes, the seller does not guarantee the completeness or correctness of all content. The buyer is
responsible for verifying the accuracy of the information and exercising their own judgment when applying it to their
assignments.
Academic Integrity: It is essential for students to maintain academic integrity and follow their institution's policies
regarding plagiarism, citation, and referencing. These study notes should be used as learning tools and sources of
inspiration. Any direct reproduction of the content without proper citation and acknowledgment may be considered
academic misconduct.
Limited Liability: The seller shall not be liable for any direct or indirect damages, losses, or consequences arising from
the use of these notes. This includes, but is not limited to, poor academic performance, penalties, or any other negative
consequences resulting from the application or misuse of the information provided.
, For additional support +27 81 278 3372
3 ANSWERS PROVIDED
The central issue in this matter is whether a valid contract of sale was concluded
between Shane and Porsche Johannesburg, despite the failure of the seller’s
authorised representative to sign the ‘Contract of Sale’ document. The crux lies in
whether the mode of acceptance was properly complied with and whether such
compliance was essential for the conclusion of the contract.
In contract law, acceptance must be clear, unambiguous, and communicated to the
offeror in a manner prescribed by the offer or required by law for the contract to
come into effect. If a specific mode of acceptance is prescribed—such as signing a
written agreement—it must be complied with for the contract to be valid, unless the
parties intended otherwise or the formalities were merely for evidential purposes
rather than validity.1
In the present case, the contract explicitly provided a space for the seller’s
authorised representative to sign the agreement, which may indicate that the parties
intended for the contract to be concluded only once both parties had signed. This
interpretation aligns with the principles established in Goldblatt v Fremantle, where
the court held that no binding contract came into existence because the parties had
agreed that their agreement would only be valid once reduced to writing and signed
by both sides.2
If the signature of the seller’s representative was intended as a prescribed mode of
acceptance, then the absence of such a signature means that acceptance did not
comply with the required formality. As a result, no binding contract was formed, even
if Shane had already fulfilled his payment obligations and the dealership proceeded
with the order process. The court in Goldblatt v Fremantle emphasized that the
parties’ intention regarding formality is decisive. Therefore, if they intended that no
agreement would be binding until signed by both parties, the absence of the seller’s
signature is fatal to contract formation.3
However, if it can be shown that the requirement for the seller’s signature was only
for evidential purposes and not for the validity of the agreement, then the failure to
1
Hutchison & Pretorius (eds) The Law of Contract in South Africa 4ed (2022) at 80.
2
Goldblatt v Fremantle 1920 AD 123.
3
Hutchison & Pretorius (2022) at 82.
