QUALITY ANSWERS PROVIDED
PVL3702 ASSIGNMENT 01 QUESTION: 2023 (SEMESTER 2)
UNIQUE NUMBER: 698664
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 people who submitted written offers for the bicycle.
Jane’s offer was for R150 000, And Portia’s offer was for R190 000. Although
Carol intended to accept Portia’s offer, she Erroneously wrote a letter to Jane,
wherein she accepted Jane’s offer. Jane believes that An enforceable contract
was concluded but Carol denies this. Apply the iustus error Doctrine and advise if
a legally binding contract was concluded between Carol and Jane. Discuss fully
and refer to case law in your answer. Do not apply the Consumer Protection Act
68 of 2008.
Iustus Error Doctrine and Legally Binding Contract
The iustus error doctrine is a legal principle that applies when there is a mistake made
by one party in a contract. It allows for the contract to be set aside if the mistake is of
such a nature that it renders the contract fundamentally different from what was
intended by the parties.
In the given scenario, Carol made an error by mistakenly accepting Jane's offer instead
of Portia's offer. The question is whether this mistake is significant enough to invoke the
iustus error doctrine and set aside the contract.
In order to determine whether a legally binding contract was concluded between Carol
and Jane, we need to consider the essential elements of a contract. These elements
include offer, acceptance, consideration, intention to create legal relations, and certainty
of terms.
Consideration: Consideration refers to something of value exchanged between the
parties. In this case, Jane's offer of R150,000 and Carol's acceptance can be
considered as consideration.
Intention to create legal relations: For a contract to be legally binding, the parties must
have an intention to create legal relations. In this case, Carol's advertisement and
invitation to make offers indicate an intention to create legal relations.
Certainty of terms: Contracts must have clear and certain terms. While the exact terms
of the contract are not mentioned in the question, the price offered by Jane and
accepted by Carol can be considered a clear and certain term.
Based on these elements, it can be argued that a legally binding contract was
concluded between Carol and Jane. Jane made a valid offer, Carol accepted it (albeit
mistakenly), there was consideration, and both parties had an intention to create legal
PVL3702 ASSIGNMENT 01 QUESTION: 2023 (SEMESTER 2)
UNIQUE NUMBER: 698664
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 people who submitted written offers for the bicycle.
Jane’s offer was for R150 000, And Portia’s offer was for R190 000. Although
Carol intended to accept Portia’s offer, she Erroneously wrote a letter to Jane,
wherein she accepted Jane’s offer. Jane believes that An enforceable contract
was concluded but Carol denies this. Apply the iustus error Doctrine and advise if
a legally binding contract was concluded between Carol and Jane. Discuss fully
and refer to case law in your answer. Do not apply the Consumer Protection Act
68 of 2008.
Iustus Error Doctrine and Legally Binding Contract
The iustus error doctrine is a legal principle that applies when there is a mistake made
by one party in a contract. It allows for the contract to be set aside if the mistake is of
such a nature that it renders the contract fundamentally different from what was
intended by the parties.
In the given scenario, Carol made an error by mistakenly accepting Jane's offer instead
of Portia's offer. The question is whether this mistake is significant enough to invoke the
iustus error doctrine and set aside the contract.
In order to determine whether a legally binding contract was concluded between Carol
and Jane, we need to consider the essential elements of a contract. These elements
include offer, acceptance, consideration, intention to create legal relations, and certainty
of terms.
Consideration: Consideration refers to something of value exchanged between the
parties. In this case, Jane's offer of R150,000 and Carol's acceptance can be
considered as consideration.
Intention to create legal relations: For a contract to be legally binding, the parties must
have an intention to create legal relations. In this case, Carol's advertisement and
invitation to make offers indicate an intention to create legal relations.
Certainty of terms: Contracts must have clear and certain terms. While the exact terms
of the contract are not mentioned in the question, the price offered by Jane and
accepted by Carol can be considered a clear and certain term.
Based on these elements, it can be argued that a legally binding contract was
concluded between Carol and Jane. Jane made a valid offer, Carol accepted it (albeit
mistakenly), there was consideration, and both parties had an intention to create legal
