The Doctrine of Quasi-Mutual Assent - Has it become the General Rule for the Formation of Contracts? The Case of Pillay v Shaik 2009 4 SA 74 (SCA)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2012/v15i5a2533Keywords:
, formation of contracts, doctrine of quasi-mutual assent, prescribed mode of acceptance, offer and acceptance, self-imposed formalities.Abstract
The doctrine of quasi-mutual assent is undoubtedly part of our South African law and has been affirmed and applied in a number of leading decisions. The purpose of this note is to offer a critical analysis of the application of the doctrine in the case of Pillay v Shaik 2009 4 SA 74 (SCA). It is argued that the primary basis of contractual liability in South Africa has always been and still remains consensus ad idem as determined in terms of the rules relating to offer and acceptance It is also argued that the doctrine is not an answer to failure by the parties to comply with self-imposed formalities and/or the prescribed manner of acceptance of an offer for the valid formation of contracts. Based on the aim of the incorporation of the doctrine in our law, coupled with its application in previous court decisions, it is concluded that its application in the case of Pillay v Shaik was wrong and sets a bad precedent.
Downloads
References
Bibliography
Bhana, Bonthuys and Nortje Students' Guide
Bhana D, Bonthuys E and Nortje M Students' Guide to the Law of Contract 2nd ed (Juta Cape Town 2009)
Christie Law of Contract
Christie RH The Law of Contract in South Africa 5th ed (LexisNexis Durban 2006)
Du Bois (ed) Wille's Principles
Du Bois F (gen ed) Wille's Principles of South African Law 9th ed (Juta Cape Town 2007)
Hutchison (ed) Law of Contract
Hutchison D (ed) The Law of Contract in South Africa (Oxford University Press Oxford 2010)
Kahn Contract and Mercantile Law
Kahn E Contract and Mercantile Law Through the Cases Vol 1 2nd ed (Juta Cape Town 1988)
Sharrock Business Transactions Law
Sharrock R Business Transactions Law 8th ed (Juta Cape Town 2011)
Van der Merwe et al Contract
Van der Merwe S et al Contract: General Principles 3rd ed (Juta Cape Town 2007)
Van der Merwe and Van Huyssteen 1994 SALJ
Van der Merwe S and Van Huyssteen LF "Reasonable Reliance. Iustus Error and the Creation of Contractual Obligations" 1994 SALJ 679-687
Register of court cases
Benson v SA Mutual Life Assurance Society 1986 1 SA 776 (A)
Bloom v American Swiss Watch Company 1915 AD 100
Boerne v Harris 1949 1 SA 793 (A)
Brink v Humphries & Jewel (Pty) Ltd 2005 2 SA 419 (SCA)
Brisley v Drotsky 2002 4 SA 1 (SCA)
Driftwood Properties (Pty) Ltd v McLean 1971 3 SA 591 (A)
Eliason v Henshaw (1819) 4 Wheaton 225
Freeman v Cooke (1848) 2 Ex 654
George v Fairmead (Pty) Ltd 1958 2 SA 465 (A)
Goldblatt v Freemantle 1920 AD 123
HNR Properties CC v Standard Bank of SA Ltd 2004 4 SA 471 (SCA)
Horty Investments (Pty) Ltd v Interior Acoustics (Pty) Ltd 1984 3 SA 537 (W)
Irvan and Johnson (SA) Ltd v Kaplaan 1940 CPD 647
JRM Furniture Holdings v Cowlin 1983 4 SA 541 (W)
Laws v Rutherfurd 1924 AD 261
Lee v American Swiss Watch Company 1914 AD 121
Mackenzie v Farmer's Co-operative Meat Industries Ltd 1922 AD 16
Meter Motors (Pty) Ltd v Cohen 1966 2 SA 735 (T)
National and Overseas Distributors v Potato Board 1958 2 SA 473 (A)
Palmer v Poulter 1983 4 SA 11 (T)
Pillay v Shaik 2009 4 SA 74 (SCA)
R v Nel 1921 AD 339
Saambou-Nasionale Bouvereniging v Friedman 1979 3 SA 978 (A)
SA Sentrale Ko-operatiewe Graanmaatskappy Bpk v Shifren 1964 4 SA 760 (A)
Smith v Hughes (1871) LR 6 QB 597
Sonap Petroleum (SA) (Pty) Ltd v Pappadogianis 1992 3 SA 234 (A)
Steyn v LSA Motors 1994 1 SA 49 (A)
Van Ryn Wine and Spirit Co v Chandos Bar 1928 TPD 417
Register of legislation
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996
Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008
National Credit Act 34 of 2005
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2017 Puseletso Rankoane Thejane
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
.png){kind=spacer}