PVL3702 Assignment 1 Semester 2 (148712) Due 26 August 2025

Legal Opinion for PVL3702 Assignment 01 This response is a formal legal opinion prepared for PVL3702 Assignment 01 (Semester 2, 2025), specifically addressing the issue of prescribed mode of acceptance and whether, despite non-compliance, a valid contract of sale was concluded between Shane and Porsche Johannesburg. The opinion strictly follows the assignment instructions by excluding discussion on waiver, breach of contract, and the Consumer Protection Act, and focuses solely on two legal sub-issues: whether the seller’s signature constituted a prescribed mode of acceptance, and whether a valid contract was nonetheless concluded through acceptance by conduct. Drawing on authoritative South African contract law sources—including Kerr on prescribed modes of acceptance and Hutchison & Pretorius on the objective theory of contract—the opinion analyses key case law such as Pillay v Shaik 2009 (4) SA 74 (SCA), which affirmed that conduct can amount to valid acceptance, and Constantia Insurance Co Ltd v Compusource (Pty) Ltd 2005 (4) SA 345 (SCA), which emphasized substance over formalities. The analysis demonstrates that although the seller’s representative failed to sign the contract, the dealership’s conduct—such as accepting full payment, requesting additional specifications, and confirming delivery—clearly indicated acceptance of the offer. Applying the objective theory of contract, the opinion concludes that a binding agreement was formed and that Shane is entitled to enforce the sale. The opinion is presented in formal academic third-person style, logically structured, and includes a bibliography of all sources relied upon.