PVL3704 ACTUAL EXAM 2026/2027: 100%
Verified Questions & Correct Answers
Question 1:
Thabo, a 25-year-old student, signs a written lease with his landlord, Ms. Nkosi, for a furnished
room in Pretoria. The document is headed “Lease Agreement” and contains a clause stating: “This
document is signed subject to the lessor’s attorney’s approval.” Thabo moves in and pays two
months’ rent. After ten days, Ms. Nkosi’s attorney refuses approval, claiming the rent is too low. She
demands that Thabo vacate the premises. Thabo refuses, contending the lease is binding.
Which legal principle governs the validity of this contract?
A. The agreement is void for vagueness because the approval clause renders the obligations
conditional and unenforceable.
B. The agreement is valid and binding; the approval clause is merely a suspensive condition that
has been fulfilled by the parties’ conduct.
C. The agreement is voidable at Ms. Nkosi’s election because the attorney’s refusal constitutes a
resolutive condition.
D. The agreement is a mere agreement to agree and therefore unenforceable until formal approval
is obtained.
Correct Answer: B
,Rationale: South African law treats “subject to attorney’s approval” clauses as suspensive
conditions. Once the parties have performed (possession and payment), approval is deemed
waived under the dies interpellat pro homine principle; see Khan v Motala 1994 (2) SA 603 (A).
Question 2:
Siphokazi sends an e-mail to Lindiwe on 3 July 2026 offering to sell her vintage motorcycle for
R45,000 and states that the offer “remains open until 15 July 2026.” On 8 July, Siphokazi
telephones Lindiwe and revokes the offer. Lindiwe immediately accepts by e-mail, but Siphokazi
denies any contract exists.
Is there a binding contract?
A. No, because an offer may be revoked at any time before acceptance, regardless of a fixed
period.
B. Yes, the offer became irrevocable once Lindiwe relied on the fixed period.
C. No, because the revocation reached Lindiwe before acceptance.
D. Yes, the fixed period created a binding option which could only be terminated by rejection.
Correct Answer: C
Rationale: Under the reception theory (Hill v Hill 1946 AD 221), an offer can be revoked at any time
before acceptance, provided the revocation reaches the offeree first; the fixed period merely
indicates duratio and does not create an option without consideration.
,Question 3:
A written sale agreement for a commercial printer contains a clause: “This agreement shall be
interpreted according to the laws of the Republic of South Africa.” During a dispute, one party
argues that an unsigned side-letter, which reduces the purchase price, should also be considered.
Which rule of interpretation will the court apply to determine whether the side-letter forms part of
the contract?
A. The parol evidence rule will exclude the side-letter because the written document is intended to
be the entire contract.
B. The court will apply the Hoffmann approach and consider the side-letter as a collateral contract.
C. The quia timet principle allows extrinsic evidence only if the side-letter is notarially executed.
D. The court will admit the side-letter under the rectification exception because the price term is
clearly incorrect.
Correct Answer: B
Rationale: The Supreme Court of Appeal in KPMG v Securefin 2009 (4) SA 399 (SCA) adopted the
Hoffmann/Lord Hoffmann contextual approach: extrinsic evidence is admissible to establish a true
common intention, provided it does not contradict a non-variation clause.
Question 4:
A building contractor, Mr. Smith, completes a luxury guest-house for Dr. Mokoena one month late.
The contract contains a penalty clause: “The contractor shall pay R10,000 for every week of
delay.” Dr. Mokoena’s actual loss from lost bookings is R3,500 per week.
, Is the clause enforceable?
A. Yes, because the parties freely agreed to liquidated damages.
B. No, because the amount is exorbitant and therefore a penalty under the Conventional Penalties
Act 15 of 1962.
C. Yes, provided Dr. Mokoena proves the actual loss exceeded R10,000.
D. No, because penalty clauses are contrary to public policy under the Constitution.
Correct Answer: B
Rationale: The Conventional Penalties Act empowers courts to reduce stipulated sums that are out
of proportion to the prejudice suffered; see Barkhuizen v Napier 2007 (5) SA 323 (SCA) para 25.
Question 5:
A furniture retailer advertises a leather sofa at R12,000 in its shop window. Bongani enters the
store with the advertised cash, but the manager refuses to sell, claiming the price was a mistake
and should be R22,000.
Does Bongani have an enforceable right to the sofa at R12,000?
A. Yes, the advertisement is a firm offer which the retailer is estopped from denying.
B. No, an advertisement is generally an invitation to treat, not an offer.
C. Yes, under the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008, advertised prices are binding offers.
Verified Questions & Correct Answers
Question 1:
Thabo, a 25-year-old student, signs a written lease with his landlord, Ms. Nkosi, for a furnished
room in Pretoria. The document is headed “Lease Agreement” and contains a clause stating: “This
document is signed subject to the lessor’s attorney’s approval.” Thabo moves in and pays two
months’ rent. After ten days, Ms. Nkosi’s attorney refuses approval, claiming the rent is too low. She
demands that Thabo vacate the premises. Thabo refuses, contending the lease is binding.
Which legal principle governs the validity of this contract?
A. The agreement is void for vagueness because the approval clause renders the obligations
conditional and unenforceable.
B. The agreement is valid and binding; the approval clause is merely a suspensive condition that
has been fulfilled by the parties’ conduct.
C. The agreement is voidable at Ms. Nkosi’s election because the attorney’s refusal constitutes a
resolutive condition.
D. The agreement is a mere agreement to agree and therefore unenforceable until formal approval
is obtained.
Correct Answer: B
,Rationale: South African law treats “subject to attorney’s approval” clauses as suspensive
conditions. Once the parties have performed (possession and payment), approval is deemed
waived under the dies interpellat pro homine principle; see Khan v Motala 1994 (2) SA 603 (A).
Question 2:
Siphokazi sends an e-mail to Lindiwe on 3 July 2026 offering to sell her vintage motorcycle for
R45,000 and states that the offer “remains open until 15 July 2026.” On 8 July, Siphokazi
telephones Lindiwe and revokes the offer. Lindiwe immediately accepts by e-mail, but Siphokazi
denies any contract exists.
Is there a binding contract?
A. No, because an offer may be revoked at any time before acceptance, regardless of a fixed
period.
B. Yes, the offer became irrevocable once Lindiwe relied on the fixed period.
C. No, because the revocation reached Lindiwe before acceptance.
D. Yes, the fixed period created a binding option which could only be terminated by rejection.
Correct Answer: C
Rationale: Under the reception theory (Hill v Hill 1946 AD 221), an offer can be revoked at any time
before acceptance, provided the revocation reaches the offeree first; the fixed period merely
indicates duratio and does not create an option without consideration.
,Question 3:
A written sale agreement for a commercial printer contains a clause: “This agreement shall be
interpreted according to the laws of the Republic of South Africa.” During a dispute, one party
argues that an unsigned side-letter, which reduces the purchase price, should also be considered.
Which rule of interpretation will the court apply to determine whether the side-letter forms part of
the contract?
A. The parol evidence rule will exclude the side-letter because the written document is intended to
be the entire contract.
B. The court will apply the Hoffmann approach and consider the side-letter as a collateral contract.
C. The quia timet principle allows extrinsic evidence only if the side-letter is notarially executed.
D. The court will admit the side-letter under the rectification exception because the price term is
clearly incorrect.
Correct Answer: B
Rationale: The Supreme Court of Appeal in KPMG v Securefin 2009 (4) SA 399 (SCA) adopted the
Hoffmann/Lord Hoffmann contextual approach: extrinsic evidence is admissible to establish a true
common intention, provided it does not contradict a non-variation clause.
Question 4:
A building contractor, Mr. Smith, completes a luxury guest-house for Dr. Mokoena one month late.
The contract contains a penalty clause: “The contractor shall pay R10,000 for every week of
delay.” Dr. Mokoena’s actual loss from lost bookings is R3,500 per week.
, Is the clause enforceable?
A. Yes, because the parties freely agreed to liquidated damages.
B. No, because the amount is exorbitant and therefore a penalty under the Conventional Penalties
Act 15 of 1962.
C. Yes, provided Dr. Mokoena proves the actual loss exceeded R10,000.
D. No, because penalty clauses are contrary to public policy under the Constitution.
Correct Answer: B
Rationale: The Conventional Penalties Act empowers courts to reduce stipulated sums that are out
of proportion to the prejudice suffered; see Barkhuizen v Napier 2007 (5) SA 323 (SCA) para 25.
Question 5:
A furniture retailer advertises a leather sofa at R12,000 in its shop window. Bongani enters the
store with the advertised cash, but the manager refuses to sell, claiming the price was a mistake
and should be R22,000.
Does Bongani have an enforceable right to the sofa at R12,000?
A. Yes, the advertisement is a firm offer which the retailer is estopped from denying.
B. No, an advertisement is generally an invitation to treat, not an offer.
C. Yes, under the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008, advertised prices are binding offers.
