Law of Contract
PVL3702
Multiple choice and long questions.
11 October 2021 exam prep
Studybuddy10111
LAW NOTES 100% pass guaranteed
,Compiled by studybuddy10111
Any error omitted please revert to your study guide
For more law study packs contact
Question 1
Z walks into a shop, and puts R10 on the counter and points to a packet of
sweets. X (the owner of the shop) takes the money and hands over the sweets
to Z.
Which statement is
CORRECT?
1 There is an oral offer, and acceptance by conduct.
2 There is an express offer, and an oral acceptance.
3 There is both an offer, and acceptance by conduct.
4 There is an offer by conduct, and an express oral acceptance.
5 There is a firm oral offer, and an unqualified acceptance. (1)
Answer
3.
Discussion
Option 3 is correct. All the other options are incorrect because there is
neither an oral offer, nor an oral acceptance. No words were exchanged
between the parties. The placing of the R10 on the counter and pointing to the
sweets constitutes an offer by conduct. Z taking the money amounts to an
acceptance by conduct. See Hutchison and Pretorius (eds) The law of Contract
in South Africa Oxford University Press Southern Africa 2012 46.
Question 2
Carol, an owner of an exclusive bicycle shop advertised a special limited edition
bicycle for sale, and invited the public to make offers for the bicycle. Jane and
Portia were among many other people who submitted written offers for the
bicycle. Jane’s offer was for R150 000, and Portia’s offer was for R160 000.
Although Carol intended to accept Portia’s offer, she erroneously accepted
Jane’s offer. Carol’s mistake is
(a) not material.
(b) an error in persona.
(c) an error in motive.
(d) material.
1 (a).
2 (b).
3 (c).
4 (b) and (d).
5 (a), (b) and (c). (1)
Answer
4.
Discussion
Options (b) and (d) are correct. Option (b) is correct because there is a
mistake relating to the identity of the parties with whom Carol intended to
contract with (an error in persona) (Hutchison and Pretorius Contract 88).
Carol’s mistake was material because she inadvertently accepted the offer of
one party (Jane), whereas she intended to accept the offer of a completely
1|Page
, Compiled by studybuddy10111
Any error omitted please revert to your study guide
For more law study packs contact
different party (Portia). The facts in this problem are similar to the facts in
National and Overseas Distributors Corporation (Pty) Ltd v Potato Board 1958
(2) SA 473 (A), where the Appellate Division found that the mistake was
material. Therefore option (b) is correct and option (a) is incorrect. Option (c) is
incorrect as the error did not relate to Carol's reason for concluding the
contract
(Hutchison and Pretorius Contract 87).
Question 3
Assume the same facts as in question (2) and assume that Carol’s error was
material. Which statement(s) is/are CORRECT?
(a) Carol’s error was a iustus error.
(b) Carol’s error was not a iustus error.
(c) Carol misrepresented her intention to Jane by accepting Jane’s offer.
(d) Carol by accepting Jane’s offer, led Jane to reasonably believe that they
have reached
consensus.
1 (a).
2 (b).
3 (c) and (d).
4 (b) and (c).
5 (b), (c) and (d). (1)
Answer
5.
Discussion
The requirements of both iustus error and the doctrine of quasi mutual assent
are relevant when answering this question.
A mistake is a iustus error, if it is both material and reasonable (Hutchison and
Pretorius
Contract 99). It has already been established from the previous answer that the
error was material. The issue now is whether the mistake was also reasonable.
In National and Overseas Distributors Corporation (Pty) Ltd v Potato Board 1958
(2) SA 473 (A), the court ruled under similar circumstances that the mistake by
the contract denier was not reasonable (Hutchison and Pretorius Contract 98-
99). The mistake furthermore does not fall into one of the recognised categories
of reasonable mistakes (Hutchison and Pretorius Contract 100-103). Therefore
option (b) is correct.
Option (c) and (d) relate to requirements of the doctrine of quasi-mutual assent
(Hutchison and Pretorius Contract 95-97). This doctrine requires that the one
party reasonably believes that the other party had agreed to enter into the
contract and that this belief must have been caused by the latter party. Carol
made a misrepresentation to Jane that she wanted to conclude a contract with
Jane by accepting Jane’s offer and this led Jane to reasonably believe that
consensus had been reached between the parties. Therefore both options (c)
2|Page
PVL3702
Multiple choice and long questions.
11 October 2021 exam prep
Studybuddy10111
LAW NOTES 100% pass guaranteed
,Compiled by studybuddy10111
Any error omitted please revert to your study guide
For more law study packs contact
Question 1
Z walks into a shop, and puts R10 on the counter and points to a packet of
sweets. X (the owner of the shop) takes the money and hands over the sweets
to Z.
Which statement is
CORRECT?
1 There is an oral offer, and acceptance by conduct.
2 There is an express offer, and an oral acceptance.
3 There is both an offer, and acceptance by conduct.
4 There is an offer by conduct, and an express oral acceptance.
5 There is a firm oral offer, and an unqualified acceptance. (1)
Answer
3.
Discussion
Option 3 is correct. All the other options are incorrect because there is
neither an oral offer, nor an oral acceptance. No words were exchanged
between the parties. The placing of the R10 on the counter and pointing to the
sweets constitutes an offer by conduct. Z taking the money amounts to an
acceptance by conduct. See Hutchison and Pretorius (eds) The law of Contract
in South Africa Oxford University Press Southern Africa 2012 46.
Question 2
Carol, an owner of an exclusive bicycle shop advertised a special limited edition
bicycle for sale, and invited the public to make offers for the bicycle. Jane and
Portia were among many other people who submitted written offers for the
bicycle. Jane’s offer was for R150 000, and Portia’s offer was for R160 000.
Although Carol intended to accept Portia’s offer, she erroneously accepted
Jane’s offer. Carol’s mistake is
(a) not material.
(b) an error in persona.
(c) an error in motive.
(d) material.
1 (a).
2 (b).
3 (c).
4 (b) and (d).
5 (a), (b) and (c). (1)
Answer
4.
Discussion
Options (b) and (d) are correct. Option (b) is correct because there is a
mistake relating to the identity of the parties with whom Carol intended to
contract with (an error in persona) (Hutchison and Pretorius Contract 88).
Carol’s mistake was material because she inadvertently accepted the offer of
one party (Jane), whereas she intended to accept the offer of a completely
1|Page
, Compiled by studybuddy10111
Any error omitted please revert to your study guide
For more law study packs contact
different party (Portia). The facts in this problem are similar to the facts in
National and Overseas Distributors Corporation (Pty) Ltd v Potato Board 1958
(2) SA 473 (A), where the Appellate Division found that the mistake was
material. Therefore option (b) is correct and option (a) is incorrect. Option (c) is
incorrect as the error did not relate to Carol's reason for concluding the
contract
(Hutchison and Pretorius Contract 87).
Question 3
Assume the same facts as in question (2) and assume that Carol’s error was
material. Which statement(s) is/are CORRECT?
(a) Carol’s error was a iustus error.
(b) Carol’s error was not a iustus error.
(c) Carol misrepresented her intention to Jane by accepting Jane’s offer.
(d) Carol by accepting Jane’s offer, led Jane to reasonably believe that they
have reached
consensus.
1 (a).
2 (b).
3 (c) and (d).
4 (b) and (c).
5 (b), (c) and (d). (1)
Answer
5.
Discussion
The requirements of both iustus error and the doctrine of quasi mutual assent
are relevant when answering this question.
A mistake is a iustus error, if it is both material and reasonable (Hutchison and
Pretorius
Contract 99). It has already been established from the previous answer that the
error was material. The issue now is whether the mistake was also reasonable.
In National and Overseas Distributors Corporation (Pty) Ltd v Potato Board 1958
(2) SA 473 (A), the court ruled under similar circumstances that the mistake by
the contract denier was not reasonable (Hutchison and Pretorius Contract 98-
99). The mistake furthermore does not fall into one of the recognised categories
of reasonable mistakes (Hutchison and Pretorius Contract 100-103). Therefore
option (b) is correct.
Option (c) and (d) relate to requirements of the doctrine of quasi-mutual assent
(Hutchison and Pretorius Contract 95-97). This doctrine requires that the one
party reasonably believes that the other party had agreed to enter into the
contract and that this belief must have been caused by the latter party. Carol
made a misrepresentation to Jane that she wanted to conclude a contract with
Jane by accepting Jane’s offer and this led Jane to reasonably believe that
consensus had been reached between the parties. Therefore both options (c)
2|Page
