COLLEGE OF LAW

DEPARTMENT OF PRIVATE LAW

STUDENT NUMBER : 62883798

MODULE : Law of Contract

MODULE CODE : PVL3702

ASSIGNMENT : Number one

UNIQUE CODE : 792829

DUE DATE : 19th August 2020

Identifying the problem
This scenario deals with the question whether P accepted S's offer in time and as result whether
a contract was created between them.

Discussion on the on the relevant applicable law and application of the law to the facts
In our scenario, S made an offer in a letter to sell her motorcycle to P which was delivered by
post. In the letter she stated that her offer will expire on 1 February. An offer which has a time
limit for acceptance lapses automatically if it is not accepted within the prescribed time. P
accepted S's offer in a letter that he posted on the 31 January, but S only received the letter and
read it after the due date for acceptance. The legal question in our scenario is whether P validly
accepted the offer on or before 1 February.

According to the information theory as a general rule, a contract is concluded when the offeror
knows his or her offer has been accepted by the offeree.1 If we apply this rule to our scenario, it
is clear that the offer expired before it was accepted by the offeree. However, before we apply
the general rule to our scenario, we need to check whether the general rule is not excluded by a
recognised exception.

The following are the exceptions to the general 1 rule. Firstly, the offeror can dispense with the
need of acceptance being communicated to him or her.2 The offeror can either expressly state
this in the offer, or it can be implied from all the circumstances, the language of offer and the
nature of the contract.3 This point was emphasized the court in A to Z Bazaars (Pty) Ltd v Minister
of Agriculture. 4 However, in our scenario the offeror did not dispense with the need of
acceptance being communicated to him, hence this exception does not apply.

The second exception is the expedition theory. According to this theory as discussed by the court
in Cape Explosive Works Ltd v South African Oil and Fat Industries; Cape Explosive Works Ltd v
Lever Brothers (South Africa)Ltd5, it is assumed that the offeror authorised acceptance by post
as well as indicated that the contract is concluded as soon as the acceptance is posted.6 However
for this exception to apply in a particular situation, the following requirements are supposed to
be complied with, firstly, the offer is supposed to be sent by post or telegram.7 Secondly, postal
services are supposed to be operating normally.8 Thirdly, the offeror is not supposed to indicate

1 Dale et al the Contract law 59.

2 Dale et al the Contract law 59.
3 Dale et al the Contract law 60.
4 1975 (3) SA 408 (A).
5 1921 CPD 244.
6 Dale et al the Contract law 60.
7 Dale et al the Contract law 61.
8 Dale et al the Contract law 61.
any contrary intention.9 Lastly, the contract is supposed to be commercial.10 In our scenario, the
second requirement has not been complied with because on the day when the acceptance letter
was sent by the offeree, the postal services were not operating normally due to the strike, hence
this exception does not apply to our scenario. In Bal v Van Staden 11 , the court made similar
remarks regarding the operation of the expedition theory.

As a result of this situation, the general rule or the information theory will out of necessity apply
in our scenario. As emphasized above, the information theory states that in order to conclude a
valid contract, the offeror is supposed to be informed of acceptance of his or her offer by the
offeree within the relevant prescribed time. In our scenario, this did not happen.

Appropriate advice
A contract of sale was not concluded between S and P because in terms of information theory P
did not accept the offer within the prescribed time , hence, S can validly refuse to accept P's
performance on the basis that the contract is invalid.

2 3
5 4
6

9 A to Z Bazaars (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Agriculture 1975 (3) SA 408 (A)

10 Dale et al the Contract law 61.
11 1902 TS 128.
Bibliography
Books
Dale, H. et al The law of Contract in South Africa 3rd Ed(Oxford University press Southern Africa
(Pty) Ltd Cape Town)
Case Law
A to Z Bazaars (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Agriculture 1975 (3) SA 408 (A)
Bal v Van Staden 1902 TS 128
Cape Explosive Works Ltd v South African Oil and Fat Industries; Cape Explosive Works Ltd v Lever
Brothers (South Africa) Ltd 1921 CPD 244

ACADEMIC HONESTY DECLARATION

Declaration
1. I understand what academic dishonesty entails and am aware of Unisa’s policies in this regard.
2. I declare that this assignment is my own, original work. Where I have used someone else’s
work, I have indicated this by using the prescribed style of referencing. Every contribution to,
and quotation in, this assignment from the work or works of other people has been referenced
according to this style.
3. I have not allowed, and will not allow, anyone to copy my work with the intention of passing it
off as his or her own work.
4. I did not make use of another student’s work and submitted it as my own.

NAME: Edward Mtekama

SIGNATURE:
STUDENT NUMBER: 62883798
DATE: 17th February 2020.
 RESULTS
Id problem/1 = 1

Applicable law/2.5 = 2.5

Application/4 = 4

Advice/1 = 1

Format/1.5 = 1

------------------------------

Total = 9.5 / 10 (95%)

 COMMENTS
1 use correct referencing techniques- see tutorial letter 301 case law in italics full citation
2 You have identified the problem correctly.
3 You have discussed the relevant law and referred to appropriate authority, without plagiarising.
4 You have given the appropriate advice. The contract is invalid because of the lack of actual and
apparent consensus.
5 You have applied the law to the facts correctly.
6 You have not complied with the following format requirement(s): The correct referencing techniques
were not used. The correct referencing techniques were not used.