PVL3702
ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 2 2025
UNIQUE NO.
DUE DATE: 26 AUGUST 2025
, PVL3702 ASSIGNMENT 01 SEMESTER 2 – 2025
DUE DATE: 26 AUGUST 2025
LEGAL OPINION FOR SHANE
Legal Opinion: Mode of Acceptance and Validity of the Contract
The central issue is whether the absence of the seller’s authorised representative’s
signature on the ‘Contract of Sale’ document invalidates the contract on the grounds of
non-compliance with the prescribed mode of acceptance.
In South African contract law, acceptance of an offer must generally comply with any
prescribed mode, if one is stipulated. A prescribed mode of acceptance exists where the
offeror explicitly requires acceptance to take a particular form. If such mode is
mandatory and not complied with, no valid acceptance — and thus no valid contract —
is concluded. However, courts distinguish between a directory (suggested) and
prescriptive (mandatory) mode of acceptance.
In this case, the dealership presented Shane with a ‘Contract of Sale’ that included a
space for the seller or its authorised representative to sign. The question is whether the
seller’s signature was a prescribed mode of acceptance or merely a recordal of the
agreement already concluded.
By applying the objective theory of contract, South African courts focus on the outward
manifestation of agreement rather than the internal intentions. Shane signed the
contract and paid the full purchase price and the additional R50,000 for the sunroof. The
dealership received and accepted payment without objection, and the seller’s conduct
— including confirming the expected delivery date — clearly indicates performance in
terms of the agreement. This conduct objectively shows that the dealership intended to
be bound, despite the absence of a physical signature.
ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 2 2025
UNIQUE NO.
DUE DATE: 26 AUGUST 2025
, PVL3702 ASSIGNMENT 01 SEMESTER 2 – 2025
DUE DATE: 26 AUGUST 2025
LEGAL OPINION FOR SHANE
Legal Opinion: Mode of Acceptance and Validity of the Contract
The central issue is whether the absence of the seller’s authorised representative’s
signature on the ‘Contract of Sale’ document invalidates the contract on the grounds of
non-compliance with the prescribed mode of acceptance.
In South African contract law, acceptance of an offer must generally comply with any
prescribed mode, if one is stipulated. A prescribed mode of acceptance exists where the
offeror explicitly requires acceptance to take a particular form. If such mode is
mandatory and not complied with, no valid acceptance — and thus no valid contract —
is concluded. However, courts distinguish between a directory (suggested) and
prescriptive (mandatory) mode of acceptance.
In this case, the dealership presented Shane with a ‘Contract of Sale’ that included a
space for the seller or its authorised representative to sign. The question is whether the
seller’s signature was a prescribed mode of acceptance or merely a recordal of the
agreement already concluded.
By applying the objective theory of contract, South African courts focus on the outward
manifestation of agreement rather than the internal intentions. Shane signed the
contract and paid the full purchase price and the additional R50,000 for the sunroof. The
dealership received and accepted payment without objection, and the seller’s conduct
— including confirming the expected delivery date — clearly indicates performance in
terms of the agreement. This conduct objectively shows that the dealership intended to
be bound, despite the absence of a physical signature.
