CONTRACT LAW A) CAPACITY Everyone has the ability to have rights – just some people don’t have the ability to acquire certain rights and duties Won’t be legally viable if don’t have capacity – cannot contract if the necessary capacity is had Some people’s capacity is limited o Full: most people over the age of 18 o Limited: 7 -18 may have a curator ad litem that can help o None: Infants (0-7); mentally ill; insolvent; intoxicated Theron v AA Insurers – sufficiently minded to enter into an agreement and to appreciated the necessary obligation B) CONSENSUS 1) Offer Proposal with the intention that by its mere acceptance a contract should be formed May expressed (words or written) but can also be implied or tacit (through actions) Virtually the same as English law Establishes the terms of the contract and the conditions to be followed in the contract Requirements for a valid offer o Animus contrahendi Saambou case Serious intention to be legally bound Cannot simply be a statement made from jest or anger, mere social and domestic arrangements o Definite and complete Wasmuth v Jacobs Offer should be certain and definite Firm offers show intention 1
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
CONTRACT LAW
A) CAPACITY
Everyone has the ability to have rights – just some people don’t have the ability to acquire certain rights and duties
Won’t be legally viable if don’t have capacity – cannot contract if the necessary capacity is had
Some people’s capacity is limitedo Full: most people over the age of 18o Limited: 7 -18 may have a curator ad litem that can helpo None: Infants (0-7); mentally ill; insolvent; intoxicated
Theron v AA Insurers – sufficiently minded to enter into an agreement and to appreciated the necessary obligation
B) CONSENSUS
1) Offer Proposal with the intention that by its mere acceptance a contract should be formed May expressed (words or written) but can also be implied or tacit (through actions) Virtually the same as English law Establishes the terms of the contract and the conditions to be followed in the contract Requirements for a valid offer
o Animus contrahendi Saambou case Serious intention to be legally bound Cannot simply be a statement made from jest or anger, mere social
and domestic arrangementso Definite and complete
Wasmuth v Jacobs Offer should be certain and definite Firm offers show intention An ambiguous proposal cannot be classified as an offer Invitations to treat, offers to negotiate, offers to chaffer
Statements inducing others to enter into negotiations with a view of arriving at a contract, but this is not an actual contract
Biloden Properties v Wilson Requests for an offer
An invitation to have an offer made – ask another individual to make an offer
Efroiken case Driftwood Properties case
Statements of information This is normally in answer to a request
1
Party may supply information about the terms to which they are prepared to do business
But this is not an offer – merely states information Harvey v Facey
Statements of intention Difference between stating that one intends to contract and
someone actually contracting Rood v Venter
Proposals for partial, incomplete or provisional agreements Not uncommon for parties to record process in a partial
agreement – so through negotiations come up with partial agreements
But these partial agreements cannot be construed as offers Pitout v North Cape Livestock Co-op These agreements are vague Even if terms are agreed upon, until a valid offer is made
there is no offer – requires interpretation Initial agreements cannot acquire contractual force if it is
incapable of standing on its own o Addressed to a specific person
Cannot be addressed to the whole world (Carlill case) Words of the offer are fundamental – if they are clear a conclusion can be reached by
‘linguistic treatment’ If an offeree’s intention coincides with the true intention they cannot take advantage
of the words of the contract Advertisements, circulars, catalogues, price tickets
o Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Coo By our law a firm offer may be made to the public or to indeterminate
persons by advertisements o But it comes to a question of fact whether an advertisement is a contract o Crawley v Rexo Often these are simply invitations to negotiate o No legally enforceable rights shall arise out of the contract – ie
advertisements Calling for tenders
o May be made generally or to members of a group o Unlikely to wish to commit oneself to a binding contracto No more than a request to submit an offer – not obliged to accepted any
kind of tender o When a sphere of government calls for tenders – it must be fair, equitable,
transparent and cost-effective o When a tender is accepted it must be treated like any other contract would
Auctions Termination of an offer
o Effluxion of fixed time – set a specific time in which the contract has to be accepted (Laws v Rutherford)
2
o Lapse of reasonable time – a reasonable time can be ascertained from the surrounding circumstances
o Death – no contract can be entered into if there is no longer possibility of consensus; but if the contract was entered into before the death, then the other party has a claim against the estate
o Loss of contractual capacity o Rejectiono Counter-offer o Withdrawal or revocation
Options and rights of pre-emptiono Options
An offer cannot be withdrawn if the offeror has bound himself by contract with the offeree not to withdraw it
Boyd v Nell These are separate subsidiary contracts Pactum de contrahendo Parties are contractually bound to maintain the contract – if not
interdict or damageso Rights of pre-emption
Right of first refusal Owsianick v African Consolidated Theatres Right to have first offer and to reject first This is a conditional offer, if the person decides not to contract,
then no contract can exist
2) Acceptance No contract can come into existence unless the offer is accepted Statement of intention in which offeree signifies his assent to the proposal embodied
in the offer Proposition that an offeree can accept and notify the offeror of his acceptance before
the offer is made is impossible Requirements
o Only accepted by person it was made to Can only be accepted by the person who was offered the
agreement Cannot nominate an offeree – must be made by the person to
whom the agreement was madeo Knowledge of the offer
The parties must be aware that an offer has been made Bloom v American Swiss Watch Company
o Acceptance unequivocal was made to must be unequivocal or unambiguous Boerne v Harris Courts have taken a strict approach to this requirement Must accept the raw contract without ambiguity
o Acceptance must correspond to the offer
3
Must be communicated to the offeror – must make sure that the offeror is aware that the offer has been accepted
o Method of acceptance Driftwood Properties case Laws v Rutherford The acceptance must be made in the prescribed manner explained
in the offer If this manner is not followed then there is not full acceptance of
the offer Silence as acceptance
o Seeff caseo Generally silence is not considered as acceptance of an offer, only
regarded as acceptance if there is a duty to speako If there is a duty to reject and offer then silence would be the acceptance
of such an offer Postal contracts
o Contracts are often created in the post, but gives rise to a number of problems
o Cape Explosives Works case o Four theories in regard to this question
Declaration theory – when someone declares that they want to be bound the contract is concluded
Expedition theory – when the post is posted then the contract is concluded
Reception theory – when the post is received the contract is concluded
Information theory – when the information is finally read the contract is concluded
o The form that has been accepted in the Cape Explosives Works case and Kergeulen case is the expedition theory
3) Reality of Consent Theories of Contract and Mistake
o Validity is affected when someone contracts based on a mistakeo Means there are no clear, apparent facts – then true facts may appear –
then there is no contracto The mistake must be legally significant – must show that it is not legally
binding o Destroys element of consensus (dissensus)o Questions are whether the mistake was a critical? Was it justifiable? o Subjective/Will theory
Both parties agree on all elements subjectively Both know what the issues are But no subjective meeting of the minds – not perfect consensus
(therefore no contract)
4
Very difficult test to prove and use – often no subjective meeting of the minds
Allows no security in bargains – no free market economy; people would never agree on the terms created
o Objective/Declaration theory SARH case Only true indication of a contract is the objective declaration made
by the parties – so it there is an outward declaration But this theory does not concern itself with the workings of the
minds If through actions, even without a meeting of the minds, then a
contract can in fact exist Doesn’t take into account the actual interests of the parties – purely
objective approacho Possible theoretical approaches
There is a need for a compromise (Saambou case) Jansen J believed that there was a purpose to subjective theory
(first point of reference) then need to consider the objective theory and how objectively there may be a contract
Four possible approaches Doctrine of estoppel – unsuitable approach Doctrine of culpa in contrahendo – German approach Doctrine of iustus error – not accepted as a doctrine, but
mistake is often referred to as a iustus error Doctrine of quasi-mutual assent/reliance theory – adopted
by Saambou case; feel there is an apparent agreement o Reliance theory
Synthesis of different theories If there is no subjective agreement then can consider the objective
theory A contract will be recognized if
one party by their outwards actions creates in the mind of the other party the belief that there is an agreement
the party wanting the rely on the agreement can show that their belief is reasonable
Smith v Hughes Hodgson Brothers case If a person conducts himself that a reasonable man would believe
that there was a contract, then there is in fact a contract between the parties
Proving a Contractual Mistake o Apply the reliance theory
5
o Consider the two parties – party alleging the contract (P) and the party who argues there is no contract (Q)
o Two enquiries 1) Party alleging the contract must prove prima facie that there was
an agreement Declaration of intention on his P’s part Corresponding declaration from Q
2) if P is successful, onus moves to Q to prove that there was a mistake
Material confusion Reliance on P’s part is unreasonable – key test; law looks at
P’s conduct and whether it was reasonable Has to prove a iustus error
o Material confusion Is there confusion as to the nature of the contract or a key term?
Dobbs, Horty and Sonap, George cases Confusion as to the thing that is the subject matter of the contract
Martiz and Allen cases Confusion as to the person with who one is contracting
Potato Board case HOWEVER – problem cannot be with regard to the quality of the
thing; nor can it be for errant motiveso Unreasonable reliance on the contract (if the party alleging the contract
exists… Subjectively knew of material confusion, but kept silent
Sonap case Ought reasonable to have known f the material confusion and did
not clarify Horty case
Actually caused the confusion in the first place by creating an impression, prior to contracting, which is contrary to the document upon which he now relies
Allen and Spindrifter case The clause in dispute is a trap for the unwary and ought reasonably
have been pointed out and clarified Compusource case
o If either of these requirements is met there is iustus erroro Contract never existed in the eyes of the lawo If the requirements are not met – the contract exists (George case, Potato
Board case, Hodgson brothers case)o Contracts are now being made more clearly o Cape Group Construction case
Unsigned documents and ticket caseo Signed
Signatures are seen as apparent acceptance of a contract Caveat subscriptor rule – beware the person who signs
6
Burge v SARH Binding if one signs – implied consent if one signs the terms and
agreements Quasi-mutual assent and reliance
o Unsigned documents Large scale contracts are impossible to sign – music concerts,
internet transactions Even with the absence of a signature, there are implied terms and
conditions which apply Richardson Spence and Co SARH v McLaren Test to determine whether the terms are binding
1) Was the person aware that there was writing or printing on the ticket?
2) Did the person know that the writing referred to contained terms or conditions?
o If yes then bound, if no continue 3) Did the party issuing the ticket reasonably notify the
other party that the wording referred to the terms (question of fact)
o If yes then bound, if no then not bound Bok clothing v Lady Land Ltd
Misrepresentationo May create consensus but the agreement is wrongfully induced, it is
tainted consensuso Must be a representation (by statement, conduct or silence) which is false
(either innocently, fraudulently, or negligently) which induce a contracto Schematic position in Petit case
Puff – general statement of praise of commendation, spin, no legal force
Term – agreed upon, binding, requires performance, if not done then breach
Representation – between puffery and terms, statement made with regards quality or attributes, goes beyond puffery, induces the contract
o Fraudulent – can not be treated as binding on innocent party; once a contract is contrary to good faith it is declared void and to have never existed
Elements A false representation – must be a statement of fact or a
dishonest opiniono Feinstein case o Either by words or conduct (words – Scheepers
case, Bill Harvey case; conduct and words – Trotman case)
Must be wrongfully made
7
o If there is a positive statement it is easy to show that a representation was made wrongfully
o Problem is with silence or non-disclosureo If there is a duty to speak then silence is a
misrepresentationo Sometime duty to speak – in terms of full disclosure
(insurance), relationship of trust (agency and mandate)
Made fraudulentlyo Derry v Peek o Lord Hershell – test of intention/dolus –
representation was made knowing it was false; without belief of its truth; recklessly, carless as to whether it was true or not
Must induce the contracto Must be a causal link between making the
representation and the contracto Must have acted on the misrepresentationo Woodstock case
Made by the other party o The person must have been a contracting party,
cannot be a third partyo May have a delictual claim against a third party, but
not really capable of rescinding the contract based on this misrepresentation
Remedies Rescission (contractual remedy) and restitution
(enrichment)o Restitution
Feinstein v Niggli Rescission is a form of election to the
aggrieved party to decide whether they want the contract to hold or not
The contract can be declared void (although it never existed) or voidable (if one decides)
Must be done within a reasonable time, must tell the person one is doing it; not up to the court to interpret ones actions
There is a question of materiality It must be material to be able to
rescind the contract Taking a purely objective test cannot
work – must also consider the subjective scenario made available to the parties
Kerr
8
o All misrepresentations are material – so all can be rescinded
De Voso Distinguishes different types
of materiality using old authorities
o Dolus dans causam contractui (can call it off – because had known the truth never entered into the contract)
o Dolus incidens in contractum (can’t call off – change in terms would still have entered into the contract)
o Restitution Restitution in integrum – restore the parties
to their original position Sometimes this is impossible to do – but the
courts will seek to place both parties in their original position – so reciprocal restitution
But may be destroyed because of fraud, an act of God or depreciation due to fair wear and tear
Damages o Can do this in addition to rescission, or noto Use delictual means (cannot use contractual means)
If there was a wrongful act, treat it as a delict (negative standard)
o Trotman case o Originally had set means of determining damages
for misrepresentationo But with Ranger’s case decided that there is no
fixed method or formula for determining damages for misrepresentation; must take a flexible approach
o Negligence Elements
False representation Wrongfully made Induced the contract By the other party Negligent
o Kruger v Coetzeeo Test of a reasonable person – and then would they
have forseen the problem Remedies
9
Same as for fraudulent Originally couldn’t award damages for negligence – but
position has changed Bayer v Frost
o Innocence Simple misrepresentation No fault – cannot prove intention Only remedy is rescission and restitution (binary – have to adopt
both) Duress
o Voet clarified distinction between force (vis) and threats and fear (metus) o Effect was that could have absolute force (vis absoluta) or threats (vis
compisiva)o Physical force
If this is found to be the case the contract is void ab initio No consensus Literal physical force to conclude the agreement
o Threats The person did consent willingly, out of fear, therefore the contract
is not void, but voidable o Requirements for duress
Actual violence or reasonable fear Test is purely objective – must be sufficient to affect the
mind of reasonable person – but this test seems to stringent Therefore, have taken a subjective test – consider the
circumstance, character of the person, ability to reject Block v Dogon
Fear must be cause by the threat of some considerable evil to the party or his family
Must be some threat to oneself or one’s family Stringent restriction to person and family – but this is
questioned – should be developed Hendricks v Barnard Mentze’s case
Must be the threat of an imminent or inevitable evil Would a person ordinary firmness have resisted the threat? Should not adopt an armchair approach – need to consider
the subjective test Threat or intimidation must be contra bona mores
This is also a subjective test Cannot simply regard that all duress will be contra bona
mores Moral pressure must cause damage
Any threat that would lead to a crime or delict would be unlawful
10
The threat must have induced the party to conclude the contract – cannot be an element which did not really induce the agreement
(If it pertains to property – one must have in addition have protested vigorously not to have the property taken away)
o Duress by a third party Doesn’t matter whether the third party is connected to the
contracting parties or not – if it is done – the contract can be rescinded
o Remedies – same as misrepresentation o Revised test of enquiries
First enquiry – proposal Was a threat made? Was the threat legitimate?
Second enquiry – choice Did the threat induce the contract? Was the victim justified in consenting?
Undue Influence o Found value in the English lawo Preller v Jordaano One person has acquired an influence over another, which he uses in an
improper/illegitimate manner to induce another to conclude a contract that he otherwise would not have in terms of his free will
o Question of fact whether the other party has an undue influence over the other
o Onus is placed on the party seeking to have the contract set asideo May occur between: doctors and patients, husbands and wives, mother and
daughter, father and son, etco Key elements
Other contractant obtained an influence Influence weakened the power of resistance (made will pliable) Influence was used in an unconscionable manner to persuade him
to agree to the transaction – to his detriment, would not have concluded otherwise
o Remedies Same as misrepresentation But never have claimed for damages
C) LEGALITY
1) General Renders a contract void or unenforceable Been some contravention of some rule of law
11
Either a whole contract will be deemed illegal or only a key term of a contract will be illegal/contrary to law
Contracts be illegal if they are contrary to statute or common law Statute law
o Almost impossible to explain all; but parliament has stepped in to limit illegality
o Parliament has become more involved, but still leave the role up to common law to develop
o National Credit Act – significant to contractual agreements, huge exploitation of consumers, high percentage mark-ups
o Consumer Protection Act – being awaited, but will protect consumer agreements
o S60 of the Medical Health Care Act – prohibits the sale of human tissues Common law illegality
o Injurious to the state Trading with the enemy (Hoch v Scoble) Tending to injure the public service
o Injurious to the administration of justice May oust the jurisdiction of the court Collusion – agreement that one shall commit to act in order that the
other may obtain a remedy at law for a real injury Champerty and maintenance Excessive attorney fees or witness expenses
o Encouraging criminal actions and delicto Injurious to the institution of marriageso Contracts that effect wills and successiono Contracts relating to wagering and gamblingo Key principle of legality is the broad principle of public policy – illegality
if it is contrary to public policy and morals (contra bones mores) o Sasfin v Beukes (Smalberger JA) – public policy is a vague concept,
value based; need to weigh up what the law is, what morality is, and how the community considers the terms
o Eastwood V Shepstone o Has taken an individualist/formalist approach
Contracts are made up of freedom of contract and pacta sunt servanda (sanctity of contracts/promise)
Matter of private law between two parties and how they advance their interests
Once a contract has been completed must honour ones promises Economic matters for the market place (felt that it should be dealt
with in the market place) - but developed, because no longer is this arena far on all parties
Bank of Lisbon case – high water mark of individualist approach, but not have started to consider the circumstances of the parties
12
Law is concerned with the content and obligation of the contract, not the form of the contract
But there have been developments in the law – no longer so individualistic – realized that some partners do not have the same bargaining power (Eastwood v Shepstone)
Sasfin – need to do simply justice between parties (consider equity and justice)
2) Common law, constitutional and legislative developments Focus has been to develop concept of public policy and how it can be used more
effectively to avoid harsh effects of pacta sunt servanda Sasfin – no need to classify contrary to public policy, common law or contra bone
mores of society – all mean the same thing o Public policy generally favours the utmost freedom of contracto Public policy properly takes into account the necessity of doing simply
justice between man and mano Power to declare a contract contrary to public policy and unenforceable
should be exercised sparingly and only in the clearest caseso May be declared invalid if it is clearly contrary
Two situations where a contract may be illegal according to common lawo Contract or a term thereof is contrary to public policy (objective test of the
general assessment of the contract) Requirements
Court will generally favour freedom of contract – while promises should be honoured
Public policy also requires courts to be courts of justice and ensure fairness
Court will only interfere on grounds of public policy sparingly and in obvious cases
If the clause is oppressive, unduly harsh and socially/economically inexpedient then can cancel the contract
Should interpret to maintain the promise of the contract, but if it is contrary to public policy it must be changed
Can severe the contract if is contrary to public policy – blue pencil test (notional severance test)
Can the contract exist and make sense without the clause If it can exist without the clause then cancel it If the expunged clause leaves the contract irrelevant – then
the contract is void and disappears o Terms are valid, but within the context and circumstance the clause would
be unreasonable (subjective test) This was originally the exceptio doli generalis rule – but this is
now defunct Brisley and Afrox cases – argued that there should be a normative
standard of good faith in contractual dealings
13
Good faith Conduct oneself in a decent, reasonable and fair manner Very difficult term to appreciate Minimum level of respect, unreasonable and one-sided
promotion of one’s interests is contrary to good faith - Hutchison
o Brisley’s case First scenario – the clause was not contrary to public policy – so
had to consider second scenario (in the circumstances) Second scenario – whether the contract, in the context was against
good faith – but the person was not acting in bad faith as a result of a doctrine or rule based reason (confirmed in Barkhuizen)
Constitutional values have become relevant – don’t have to directly apply the Bill of Rights, but most consider the contract through the eyes of public policy which is informed in constitutional values (equality, dignity and fairness)
o Barkhuizen caseo Brisely case
Law is concerned with the content and obligation of the contract, not the form of the contract
Supervening impossibility was originally not accepted in our law, but now it is of importance – it has the same effect as initial impossibility
Can have partial impossibility – which means that the contract can still hold even if a clause is impossible – does not have a huge impact on the actual contract
No obligation arises if it is impossible
3) Restraint of Trade Magna Alloys case – Didcott J Until 1984 these restraint clauses were allowed, they were allowed to be used for the
purposes of contracts Were examined in light of the interim constitution (s26 – free engagement in
economic activities) Originally adopted English approach
o Prima facie invalid o Only way to succeed is if employer can show restraint is reasonableo If it impacts negatively on trade won’t be allowed
But Magna Alloys case held that no longer can they be considered prima facie invalid, so development – now adopt the Roman Dutch view (polar opposite to English law)
o Onus is on party attempting to escape the clause to prove that the clause is unreasonable
o Prima facie valid and enforceable Sibex case – clause will be declared contrary to public policy if it violates fair
competition and is not designed to protect a valid proprietary interests – need to consider general skills, trade connections, goodwill, trade secrets
o General skills No proprietary interest in skills
14
May not relinquish these Cannot restrain because they are good at something
o Trade connections Have a proprietary interest Relationship would have been built up between the company and
the worker Restraint clauses can be used for this Rawlens v Caravan Truck
o Goodwill Regard/image of a business in the public eye Has a form of monetary valued (capital of the business) In the sale of a business – may restrain the original owner from
infringing on the new owner Botha case Can be up to 30 years
o Trade secrets Marketing and pricing structures, franchising information,
industrial secrets (patents, etc) Must be secret or privileged information Sibex case
If there is a valid protectable proprietary interest, can argue that the ambit is too wide and that it needs to be amended – there are factors to consider in relation to space and time
o Must also consider the nature of the business - whether it is international/local/unique
o Area from which the cliental are drawn o Area of restraint cannot exceed the area of the business being protected o Area of restraint on an ex-employee must also be related with reasonable
fairness to the period of the employee o When considering time – 30 years for a sales of goodwill; indefinite
period for medical practitioners – this does not clash with public policy o Generally do not interfere – so rarely will develop these clauses o MINORS AND MAJORS
If a restraint of trade clause is too wide there can be a development of severability – can be severed and the remainder will be enforced – but it can only be severed if the parts are divisible and can be divided
4) Constitutionality Questioned how this affects restraint of trade
o S22 – freedom of trade, occupation, trade, professiono S21 – freedom of movemento S13 – slavery, servitude and forced labour
15
o S10 – dignity Key issues is the onus (person attempting to get out of the contract has the onus)
o Magna Alloys – constitutionally sound Legitimacy balances the competing issues
o But debate has flared up again as to whether the rights are being valuedo Canon KZN v Booth (declared in 2000)
Magna Alloys is unconstitutional Restraint of trade clauses limit rights (s22) Believed that there should place the onus on the employer to prove
that the restraint is reasonable o Subsequent to this
Aqua d’or v Camara (cc) – drastic change from Magna Alloys, cape division does not really accept new approach, still feel people should be self bound to prove their personal rights are limited
Rectron v Govender – some court as Canon KZN, argued the Canon case was incorrectly decided (dispute in the same division)
Automotive Tooling v Wilkens – ignored the debate completely, applied Magna Alloys
Reddy v Siemens – matter was placed forcefully before the SCA, declined to deal with the issue, felt it was unnecessary – facts, outcome would be the same no matter what, implicit application of Magna Alloys
o Considered as a moot point in our law – neither the SCA cases were good tests
4) Remedies o Handout
D) POSSIBILITY OF PERFORMANCE
1) General Impossibilum nulla obligation est – impossibility nullifies any obligation
16
If impossible if at time entered into (initial impossibility) or at the time of performance (supervening impossibility)
Initial impossibility – void ab initio Law is concerned with the content and obligation of the contract, not the form of the
contract Supervening impossibility was originally not accepted in our law, but now it is of
importance – it has the same effect as initial impossibility Can have partial impossibility – which means that the contract can still hold even if a
clause is impossible – does not have a huge impact on the actual contract No obligation arises if it is impossible
2) Main requirements Impossibility absolute as opposed to probably (specifically for initial)
o Performance must be objectively impossibleo Cannot simply be in the realm of impossibility, must be absoluteo Eg – sale of a putative thing (it may exist in the future however, as for
wine from grapes) Impossibility absolute as opposed to relative (specifically for initial)
o Must not consider the subjective situation of a persono Contracts must apply objectively to all individuals
Not the fault of either party (specifically for supervening)o If these is a fault – misrepresentation, etc – then there is a breach of
contracto One cannot cause the impossibility o Vis maior (acts of God) and casus fortuitus (acts of government)o If someone acts through fault – they bear the consequences of the action
Principle intention must give way to the contrary common intention of the parties (supervening impossibility)
o If the other party acts contrary to their original intentions this may cause impossibility
o But normally there are performance clauses, must be weary of such clauses
3) Application Peters Flamman and CO case World Leisure Holidays case
E) FORMALITIES
1) General If there are formalities they have to be complied with – Conradie v Rossouw No special formalities are required for the making of an enforceable contract
17
Serious and deliberate intention is all that is needed for a contract to be binding General rule is that no formalities are required for a contract Goldbatt v Fremantle – Innes CJ Person claiming the contract has the onus of proof A written contract does have a number of advantages – preparation of the contract
gives the parties time to consider their positions; onus of proof is simplified because all that needs to be proven is with a signature, terms are also on the page; disagreement about the terms is narrowed (because they are written)
2) Formalities decided on by the parties An agreement to have a mutual undertaking reduced to writing and signed was
insufficient to discharge the burden of showing the oral agreement was not intended to be binding
People have the liberty to create and impose formalities Writing
o Once parties decide to have a written contract, they cannot return to the state before (with the oral contract)
o Comes into existence when it is signed by both partieso Sensible thing to do o If one parties loses the actual contract, the court has no jurisdiction to ask
the other party to provide him with another copyo Three different types of writing (Goldbatt v Fremantle)
A memorandum which facilitates proof of an oral agreement (this is evidence of the concluded agreement)
A writing which embodies the agreement of the parties although not signed (questionable category)
A written document which is to be the agreement and must be signed (this is the actual contract, until this is signed the contract does not exist)
Signatureo Common formality to requireo May also require witnesses to be present and provide their signatures
No variation without writing clauseo As a general rule out of common law, that if a contract is reduced to
writing it can be altered or varied through verbal changeso However, the problem with this is whether there is any security in the
documento A number place clauses limiting this ability – so have ‘no term of the
contract may be altered or varied unless it is reduced to writing’o Have pragmatist – claim that the term must be upheld VS those who feel
that verbal changes should allow for changeo Schifren case o Brisley case
3) Formalities required by law
18
Justification for having formalities is to ensure there is reliable evidence of the terms of the contract
There were some forms contracts that were often abused, so decided on formalities that needed to be met to be valid contracts
These contract formalities now occur frequently and have financial interests – so guidelines have been set down
Parliament lays down the regulations Alientation of Land Act – cannot conclude the sale of land verbally; cannot divide
bequeathed land, etc; have to sign; specific terms relating to the wording must be used, etc; lay out the price; name of the parties; description of the land
General Law Amendment Act – deals with suretyship; must be a written signed document
National Credit Act – must be reduced to writing and signed on behalf of the parties Electronic Communications and transactions Act – questions the significance of
signatures – may be digital or electronic encoding devises Consumer Protection Act – comes into force this year some time; number of
formalities dealing with consumer contracts; codifies common law