LPL4801 MCQ Memo Bundle
2021/ALL
Question 1
X hired from Y certain premises for a period of two years for the purpose of
conducting a ski resort thereon in the Maluti mountains in the Eastern Cape.
After three months, the pleasure resort is completely destroyed in a heavy snow
storm. Why is X entitled to stop paying the rent?
1. Because Y breaches the lease agreement.
2. Because structural changes to the leased premises form part of the lessor’s
obligation, and the lessor is obliged the rebuild the ski-resort.
3. Because Y fails to maintain the leased premises in the condition in which they
were when the contract was concluded.
4. Because X does not have use and enjoyment of the leased thing anymore.
5. Because the Rental Housing Act 50 of 1999 entitles X to do so.
Feedback:
The correct answer is (4). As a naturalia of a lease agreement, the lessee is wholly
released from the obligation to pay the rent if he or she is prevented by vis maior or
casus fortuitus from having the full use and enjoyment of the thing. The snow storm
would qualify as a vis maior as it is a superior power of force that cannot be resisted
or controlled (see Study Guide 1, study unit 11, paragraph 11.1). Options 1 and 3 are
incorrect as there is no breach of the lease agreement by Y as Y did not fail to maintain
the leased premises in a condition in which they were when the contract was
concluded (see Study Guide 1, study unit 8, paragraphs 8.2-8.3). Option 2 is incorrect
because a lessor is not required to make structural changes to the leased premises,
he is only obliged to repair structural defects (see Study Guide 1, study unit 8,
paragraph 8.2). Option 5 is incorrect because the legal position is governed by
,common law principles (i.e. naturalia of the contract) and not by the Rental Housing
Act 50 of 1999.
Question 2
The rule involved in your answer to question 1 is an expression of a general
contractual principle applicable to all contracts and not only the contract of
lease. What is this rule?
1. Positive malperformance.
2. Mora debitoris.
3. Supervening impossibility of performance.
4. Mora creditoris.
5. Repudiation.
Feedback:
The correct answer is (3). As the remission of rent is claimed after a vis maior, the
general contractual principle applicable is supervening impossibility of performance.
All the other options are examples of a breach of contract and therefore incorrect (see
Study Guide 1, study unit 12, paragraph 11.5
Question 3
Which one of the following statements is CORRECT?
1. No formalities are required for the conclusion of a valid contract of lease unless
prescribed by statute.
2. A long lease can be described as a lease which has been entered into for a
period of not less than five years.
3. The Rental Housing Act 50 of 1999 is aimed at the protection of lessors against
exploitation and victimisation by lessees.
4. The Formalities in respect of Leases of Land Act 18 of 1969 provides that a
long lease must be registered.
5. A lessee may be evicted whenever it suits the lessor.
Feedback:
,The correct answer is (1). In line with the general principles of the law of contract, no
formalities are required for the conclusion of a valid contract of lease unless prescribed
(see Study Guide 1, study unit 1, paragraph 1.2.3). Option 2 is incorrect because for
a lease agreement to qualify as a long lease is must be for more than 10 years (see
Study Guide 1, study unit 10, paragraph 10.2.1). Option 3 is incorrect because the
Rental Housing Act 50 of 1999 is aimed at the protection of lessees (i.e. tenants) and
not lessors (i.e landlords) (see Study Guide 1, study unit 19, paragraph 19.2.1). Option
4 is incorrect because the Formalities in respect of Leases of Land Act 18 of 1969
does not require that a long lease must be registered but does require the registration
of a long lease to establish the lessee's real right against third parties (see Study Guide
1, study unit 10, paragraph 10.2). Option 5 is incorrect because there are various legal
requirements that must be met before a lessor may evict a lessee (see Study Guide
1, study unit 14, paragraph 14.7 as an example).
Question 4
Job, a mechanic, rents a house from Theko. Job and Theko sign a two-year
contract of lease in terms of which Job is prohibited from using the house for
business purposes without Theko’s prior consent. Job moves into the house
and, without Theko’s knowledge, converts part of it into a workshop to repair
cars. Job’s neighbours are alarmed about his business activities and the
potential decrease in the value of their houses. Because of their complaints, and
the fact that Job fell into arrears with the rent, Theko sells the house to Fisto.
Which ONE of the following statements is CORRECT?
1. Fisto will be bound to the contract of lease with Job due to the maxim “huur
gaat voor koop”.
2. Fisto will not be bound to the contract of lease with Job if he was not aware of
the existence thereof at the time when ownership passed to him.
3. To recover arrear rent, Fisto may attach and sell Jerry's cars which have been
brought to Job for repairs, even though Jerry has informed Fisto that he was
the owner of the cars.
4. To recover arrear rent, Fisto may attach and sell a television set that belongs
to Job, but is in the possession of Jack, a friend of Job.
, 5. Fisto may not sue Job for breach of the lease agreement, since the contract of
lease was concluded between Job and Theko, and not between Job and Fisto.
Feedback:
The correct answer is (1). Fisto will be bound to the contract of lease with Job because
of the “huur gaat voor koop” rule (see Study Guide 1, study unit 10, paragraph 10.3).
As such, option (2) is incorrect. Option (3) is also incorrect because goods of third
parties are not subject to the lessor’s tacit hypothec and cannot be attached and sold
to recover arrear rent due by the lessee where such goods are only temporarily on the
rental premises and where the lessor is aware that the goods are that of a third party
(see Study Guide 1, study unit 15, paragraph 15.2.2.3). Option (4) is incorrect because
the goods of a third party will only be subject to the lessor’s tacit hypothec if the goods
are brought onto the leased property for the use of the lessee (see again Study Guide
1, study unit 15, paragraph 15.2.2.3). Option (5) is incorrect because in terms of the
“huur gaat voor koop” maxim, the new owner (the purchaser) steps into the shoes of
the original lessor (the seller) which means that the new owner may sue the lessee for
breach of the lease agreement (see again Study Guide 1, study unit 10, paragraph
10.3).
Question 5
S sells her Vespa scooter to P for R25 000. The parties agree that the Vespa will
be delivered and paid the next day, without any further contractual
arrangements between the parties. The next day P waits at his house, with the
R25 000 cash, for S to deliver the Vespa, but S fails to show up, because she is
waiting at her house for P. Which of the following statement/s is/are CORRECT?
1. S has breached her duty to deliver the Vespa to P’s house.
2. P has committed mora creditoris by failing to fetch the Vespa from S.
3. P has committed mora debitoris by failing to pay S R25 000.
4. (1) and (3) are correct.
5. (2) and (3) are correct.
Feedback:
2021/ALL
Question 1
X hired from Y certain premises for a period of two years for the purpose of
conducting a ski resort thereon in the Maluti mountains in the Eastern Cape.
After three months, the pleasure resort is completely destroyed in a heavy snow
storm. Why is X entitled to stop paying the rent?
1. Because Y breaches the lease agreement.
2. Because structural changes to the leased premises form part of the lessor’s
obligation, and the lessor is obliged the rebuild the ski-resort.
3. Because Y fails to maintain the leased premises in the condition in which they
were when the contract was concluded.
4. Because X does not have use and enjoyment of the leased thing anymore.
5. Because the Rental Housing Act 50 of 1999 entitles X to do so.
Feedback:
The correct answer is (4). As a naturalia of a lease agreement, the lessee is wholly
released from the obligation to pay the rent if he or she is prevented by vis maior or
casus fortuitus from having the full use and enjoyment of the thing. The snow storm
would qualify as a vis maior as it is a superior power of force that cannot be resisted
or controlled (see Study Guide 1, study unit 11, paragraph 11.1). Options 1 and 3 are
incorrect as there is no breach of the lease agreement by Y as Y did not fail to maintain
the leased premises in a condition in which they were when the contract was
concluded (see Study Guide 1, study unit 8, paragraphs 8.2-8.3). Option 2 is incorrect
because a lessor is not required to make structural changes to the leased premises,
he is only obliged to repair structural defects (see Study Guide 1, study unit 8,
paragraph 8.2). Option 5 is incorrect because the legal position is governed by
,common law principles (i.e. naturalia of the contract) and not by the Rental Housing
Act 50 of 1999.
Question 2
The rule involved in your answer to question 1 is an expression of a general
contractual principle applicable to all contracts and not only the contract of
lease. What is this rule?
1. Positive malperformance.
2. Mora debitoris.
3. Supervening impossibility of performance.
4. Mora creditoris.
5. Repudiation.
Feedback:
The correct answer is (3). As the remission of rent is claimed after a vis maior, the
general contractual principle applicable is supervening impossibility of performance.
All the other options are examples of a breach of contract and therefore incorrect (see
Study Guide 1, study unit 12, paragraph 11.5
Question 3
Which one of the following statements is CORRECT?
1. No formalities are required for the conclusion of a valid contract of lease unless
prescribed by statute.
2. A long lease can be described as a lease which has been entered into for a
period of not less than five years.
3. The Rental Housing Act 50 of 1999 is aimed at the protection of lessors against
exploitation and victimisation by lessees.
4. The Formalities in respect of Leases of Land Act 18 of 1969 provides that a
long lease must be registered.
5. A lessee may be evicted whenever it suits the lessor.
Feedback:
,The correct answer is (1). In line with the general principles of the law of contract, no
formalities are required for the conclusion of a valid contract of lease unless prescribed
(see Study Guide 1, study unit 1, paragraph 1.2.3). Option 2 is incorrect because for
a lease agreement to qualify as a long lease is must be for more than 10 years (see
Study Guide 1, study unit 10, paragraph 10.2.1). Option 3 is incorrect because the
Rental Housing Act 50 of 1999 is aimed at the protection of lessees (i.e. tenants) and
not lessors (i.e landlords) (see Study Guide 1, study unit 19, paragraph 19.2.1). Option
4 is incorrect because the Formalities in respect of Leases of Land Act 18 of 1969
does not require that a long lease must be registered but does require the registration
of a long lease to establish the lessee's real right against third parties (see Study Guide
1, study unit 10, paragraph 10.2). Option 5 is incorrect because there are various legal
requirements that must be met before a lessor may evict a lessee (see Study Guide
1, study unit 14, paragraph 14.7 as an example).
Question 4
Job, a mechanic, rents a house from Theko. Job and Theko sign a two-year
contract of lease in terms of which Job is prohibited from using the house for
business purposes without Theko’s prior consent. Job moves into the house
and, without Theko’s knowledge, converts part of it into a workshop to repair
cars. Job’s neighbours are alarmed about his business activities and the
potential decrease in the value of their houses. Because of their complaints, and
the fact that Job fell into arrears with the rent, Theko sells the house to Fisto.
Which ONE of the following statements is CORRECT?
1. Fisto will be bound to the contract of lease with Job due to the maxim “huur
gaat voor koop”.
2. Fisto will not be bound to the contract of lease with Job if he was not aware of
the existence thereof at the time when ownership passed to him.
3. To recover arrear rent, Fisto may attach and sell Jerry's cars which have been
brought to Job for repairs, even though Jerry has informed Fisto that he was
the owner of the cars.
4. To recover arrear rent, Fisto may attach and sell a television set that belongs
to Job, but is in the possession of Jack, a friend of Job.
, 5. Fisto may not sue Job for breach of the lease agreement, since the contract of
lease was concluded between Job and Theko, and not between Job and Fisto.
Feedback:
The correct answer is (1). Fisto will be bound to the contract of lease with Job because
of the “huur gaat voor koop” rule (see Study Guide 1, study unit 10, paragraph 10.3).
As such, option (2) is incorrect. Option (3) is also incorrect because goods of third
parties are not subject to the lessor’s tacit hypothec and cannot be attached and sold
to recover arrear rent due by the lessee where such goods are only temporarily on the
rental premises and where the lessor is aware that the goods are that of a third party
(see Study Guide 1, study unit 15, paragraph 15.2.2.3). Option (4) is incorrect because
the goods of a third party will only be subject to the lessor’s tacit hypothec if the goods
are brought onto the leased property for the use of the lessee (see again Study Guide
1, study unit 15, paragraph 15.2.2.3). Option (5) is incorrect because in terms of the
“huur gaat voor koop” maxim, the new owner (the purchaser) steps into the shoes of
the original lessor (the seller) which means that the new owner may sue the lessee for
breach of the lease agreement (see again Study Guide 1, study unit 10, paragraph
10.3).
Question 5
S sells her Vespa scooter to P for R25 000. The parties agree that the Vespa will
be delivered and paid the next day, without any further contractual
arrangements between the parties. The next day P waits at his house, with the
R25 000 cash, for S to deliver the Vespa, but S fails to show up, because she is
waiting at her house for P. Which of the following statement/s is/are CORRECT?
1. S has breached her duty to deliver the Vespa to P’s house.
2. P has committed mora creditoris by failing to fetch the Vespa from S.
3. P has committed mora debitoris by failing to pay S R25 000.
4. (1) and (3) are correct.
5. (2) and (3) are correct.
Feedback:
