Assignment 4 QUIZ Semester 1 2026
Detailed Solutions, References & Explanations
Unique number: 272870
Due Date: 24 April 2026
Terms of use
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document as a guide for learning, comparison and reference purpose,
Terms of use
Not to duplicate, reproduce and/or misrepresent the contents of this document as your own work,
By making use of this document you agree to:
Use this document
Fully accept the consequences
solely as a guide forshould you plagiarise
learning, reference,or and
misuse this document.
comparison purposes,
Ensure originality of your own work, and fully accept the consequences should you plagiarise or misuse this document.
Comply with all relevant standards, guidelines, regulations, and legislation governing academic and written work.
Disclaimer
Great care has been taken in the preparation of this document; however, the contents are provided "as is" without any express or
implied representations or warranties. The author accepts no responsibility or liability for any actions taken based on the
information contained within this document. This document is intended solely for comparison, research, and reference purposes.
Reproduction, resale, or transmission of any part of this document, in any form or by any means, is strictly prohibited.
, LPL4802-26-S1 Welcome Message Assessment 4
QUIZ
Question 1
Not yet answered
Marked out of 1.00
In cases of intentional misrepresentation inducing a contract, a distinction is drawn between dolus dans and dolus incidens
where the contract is upheld. Which one of the following statements correctly describes dolus incidens?
1. A case where there would still have been a contract but on different terms.
2.
A case where the misrepresentee must be placed in the position he or she would have been in before concluding the
contract.
3. A case where there would have been more than one contract.
4. A case where there would have been no contract without misrepresentation.
Clear my choice
Question 2
Not yet answered
Marked out of 1.00
Dimakatso was involved in a motor vehicle accident, the cause of which was not her fault. Her fancy sportscar was badly
damaged and she was informed that it may take up to two (2) months to complete the repairs because some parts must be
ordered and imported from Germany. Dimakatso decides to hire a Volkswagen UP to get around and to avoid the
inconvenience of using public transport. The cost recoverable in respect of the Volkswagen UP...
1.
do not amount to mitigation of loss, therefore the claim ought to fail.
2. will not be recoverable as it was hired for convenience.
3. will only be awarded if the damaged vehicle was used for business purposes.
4. amounts to the reasonable costs of hiring a substitute.
Clear my choice