Name: Clarissa Eden Munsamy
Student Number: 56421613
Module: PVL3702
QUESTION:
Carol sent the letter of acceptance to Jane by mistake as it intended to contract with
another party. The question thus deals with error, and the application of the Justus
error doctrine.
A mistake is a Justus error, its both material and reasonable. The Justus error has
two requirements which are: the mistake must be material and reasonable. Carol
who believes that a valid contract wasn’t concluded, it must prove that both
requirements for the agreement to be declared null and void. If it fails to, the contract
will then be valid and legally binding.
Carol has sent the letter of acceptance to Jane by mistake as it was intended to be
sent to Portia. The question is thus whether this mistake on the part of Carol is both
material and reasonable, because there is a mistake relating to the identity of the
parties with whom Carol intended to contract with. Carol’s mistake was material
because she inadvertently accepted the offer of Jane, whereas she intended to
accept the offer of Portia.
Facts in this problem are similar to the facts in National and Overseas Distributors
Corporation (Pty) Ltd v Potato Board 1958 (2) SA 473 (A), where the Appellate
Division found that the mistake was material.
The mistake on the part of Carol relates to an error in persona. In this insist this type
of error, where the party intends to accept the offer of one party, but mistakenly
accepts the offer of another. Such an error is usually material. This was applied in
Kok v Osborne where a party was mistaken as to the identity of the party or parties
with whom he was contracting with, and the court held that his mistake was material.
In National and Overseas Distributors Corporation (Pty) Ltd v Potato Board a
company incorrectly sent a letter of acceptance to the wrong offeror, as it intended to
accept the offer from a different offeror and such a mistake was material. The issue
is now whether the mistake was also reasonable. In National and Overseas
Distributors Corporation (Pty) Ltd v Potato Board, the court ruled under similar
circumstances that the mistake by the contact denier wasn’t reasonable. The
mistake furthermore doesn’t fall into one of the recognised categories of reasonable
mistakes.
The doctrine requires that the one party reasonably believes that the other party had
agreed to enter into the contract and that this belief must have been caused by the
latter party. Carol made a misrepresentation to Jane that she wanted to conclude a
Student Number: 56421613
Module: PVL3702
QUESTION:
Carol sent the letter of acceptance to Jane by mistake as it intended to contract with
another party. The question thus deals with error, and the application of the Justus
error doctrine.
A mistake is a Justus error, its both material and reasonable. The Justus error has
two requirements which are: the mistake must be material and reasonable. Carol
who believes that a valid contract wasn’t concluded, it must prove that both
requirements for the agreement to be declared null and void. If it fails to, the contract
will then be valid and legally binding.
Carol has sent the letter of acceptance to Jane by mistake as it was intended to be
sent to Portia. The question is thus whether this mistake on the part of Carol is both
material and reasonable, because there is a mistake relating to the identity of the
parties with whom Carol intended to contract with. Carol’s mistake was material
because she inadvertently accepted the offer of Jane, whereas she intended to
accept the offer of Portia.
Facts in this problem are similar to the facts in National and Overseas Distributors
Corporation (Pty) Ltd v Potato Board 1958 (2) SA 473 (A), where the Appellate
Division found that the mistake was material.
The mistake on the part of Carol relates to an error in persona. In this insist this type
of error, where the party intends to accept the offer of one party, but mistakenly
accepts the offer of another. Such an error is usually material. This was applied in
Kok v Osborne where a party was mistaken as to the identity of the party or parties
with whom he was contracting with, and the court held that his mistake was material.
In National and Overseas Distributors Corporation (Pty) Ltd v Potato Board a
company incorrectly sent a letter of acceptance to the wrong offeror, as it intended to
accept the offer from a different offeror and such a mistake was material. The issue
is now whether the mistake was also reasonable. In National and Overseas
Distributors Corporation (Pty) Ltd v Potato Board, the court ruled under similar
circumstances that the mistake by the contact denier wasn’t reasonable. The
mistake furthermore doesn’t fall into one of the recognised categories of reasonable
mistakes.
The doctrine requires that the one party reasonably believes that the other party had
agreed to enter into the contract and that this belief must have been caused by the
latter party. Carol made a misrepresentation to Jane that she wanted to conclude a
