PVL3702 MCQ Assignments 2021/2022
PVL3702 - Law Of Contract
Z walks into a shop, puts R10 on the counter and points at 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.
...
NOTE: Most answers are personal or own answers to MCQ from various examination papers and tutorial letters.
There might be a few that are incorrect, however most are answered as from the Study Guide and prescribed
material.
1. Z walks into a shop, puts R10 on the counter and points at 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.
Answer: 3. There is both an offer and acceptance by conduct.
Note: There is neither an oral offer, not an oral acceptance. No words were exchanged between the parties. The
placing of the R10 on the counter and pointing at the sweets constitutes and offer by conduct. X taking the
money amounts to an acceptance by conduct.
2. C, 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. J and P were among other people who submitted written offers for the
bicycle. J’s offer was for R150 000 and P’s offer was for R160 000. Although C intended to accept P’s offer, she
erroneously accepted Jane’s offer. C’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.
Answer: 4. b. and d..
Note: b. is correct because there if a mistake relating to the identity of the parties with whom C intended to
contract with (an error in persona). C’s mistake was materially (d.) because she inadvertently accepted the
offer of one party (J), whereas she intended to accept the offer of a completely different party (P).
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.
c. is incorrect as the error did not relate to C’s reason for concluding the contract.
3. C, 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. J and P were among other people who submitted written offers for the
bicycle. J’s offer was for R150 000 and P’s offer was for R160 000. Although C intended to accept P’s offer, she
erroneously accepted J’s offer. C’s mistake is material. Which statement(s) is/are CORRECT?
a. C’s error was an iustus error.
, 2
b. C’s error was not an iustus error.
c. C misrepresented her intention to J by accepting J's offer.
d. C by accepting J’s offer, led J to reasonably believe that they had reached consensus.
1. a.
2. b.
3. c. and d.
4. b. and c.
5. b., c. and d.
Answer: 5. b., c. and d.
Note: The requirements for both iustus error and the doctrine of quasi mutual assent are relevant when answering
this question.
A mistake is an iustus error if it is both material and reasonable. It has already been established 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. The mistake furthermore does
not fall into one of the recognised categories of reasonable mistakes. Therefore option b. is correct.
Options c. and d. relate top the requirements for the doctrine of quasi-mutual assent. 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 letter party. C made a misrepresentation to J that she wanted to
conclude a contract with J by accepting J’s offer and this led J to reasonable believe that consensus had
been reached between the parties. Therefore both options c. and d. are correct.
See application of the doctrine of quasi=-mutual assent to the facts of National and Overseas Distributors
Corporation (PTY) Ltd v Potato Board 1958 (2) SA 473 (A).
4. C, 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. J and P were among other people who submitted written offers for the
bicycle. J’s offer was for R150 000 and P’s offer was for R160 000. Although C intended to accept P’s offer, she
erroneously accepted J’s offer. Which case has similar facts?
1. National and Overseas Distributors Corporation (PTY) Ltd v Potato Board 1958 (2) SA 473 (A).
2. Brink v Humphries & Jewell (Pty) Ltd 2005 (2) SA 419 (SCA).
3. George v Fairmead Hotel (Pty) Ltd 1958 (2) SA 465 (A).
4. Du Toit v Atkinson’s Motor Bpk 1985 (2) SA 893 (A).
5. Alien v Sixteen Stirling Investments (Pty) Ltd 1974 (4) SA 164 (D).
Answer: 1. National and Overseas Distributors Corporation (PTY) Ltd v Potato Board 1958 (2) SA 473 (A).
5. G points a loaded gun at P and orders him to sign a written contract. G explains that the document is for the
sale of P’s car to him (G) at a price of R50 000 which is far below the market value of the car. P, fearing for his
life, signs the document. To establish a cause of action, which of the following is NOT necessary for P to prove?
1. That P had reasonable fear.
2. That the threat weakened P’s power of resistance and rendered his will compliant.
3. That there was a threat of an imminent evil.
4. That the threat was contra bonos mores.
5. That the pressure G used caused damage.
Answer: 2. That the threat weakened P’s power of resistance and rendered his will compliant.
Note: The requirements for duress are relevant to this question, as it appears that P did not freely conclude the
contract, but through fear for his life.
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper SOLUTIONS2024. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €3,78. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
