PVL3702: LAW OF CONTRACT COMPLETE SOLUTIONS
100% CORRECT AND TRUSTED SOLUTIONS |
UNIQUE NUMBER: 270727 | GRADED A+ | VERIFIED
ANSWERS WITH EXPLANATIONS
TABLE OF CONTENTS-----------------
1. ASSIGNMENT INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS............... PAGE 1
2. COMPLETE ASSIGNMENT QUESTION.......................... PAGE 2
3. COMPREHENSIVE ANSWER WITH RATIONALES.................. PAGE 3
4. QUICK REFERENCE ANSWER KEY............................ PAGE 6
ASSIGNMENT INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS
Module: PVL3702 – Law of Contract
Assignment: 01 (Semester 1, 2026)
Due Date: 31 March 2026 before 15H00
Unique Number: 270727
Total Marks: 10
Format: PDF (Arial, font size 12)
Length: Not exceeding one typed page or two written pages
Coverage: Learning Unit 1 (all 5 lessons); Learning Unit 2 (Lessons 1,2,3,4);
Learning Unit 4 (Lesson 2 only)
INSTRUCTIONS:
- Only one submission attempt permitted.
- Submit the correct PVL3702 Assignment 1.
- Refer to prescribed cases: Kok v Osborne 1993 (4) SA 788 (SE) and
Allen v Sixteen Stirling Investments (Pty) Ltd 1974 (4) SA 164 (D).
- Do not apply the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008.
- Do not discuss latent defects or breach of contract.
DISCLAIMER:
This document is intended for study assistance and reference only. Students are
advised to use this material as a guide and to ensure their final submissions are
original work.
COMPLETE ASSIGNMENT QUESTION
, Jabu owns a jewelry store. He recently bought what he believed to be a genuine
diamond ring for R50 000 from one of his suppliers. Raymond visits the store and
offers Jabu R80 000 for the same ring, and Jabu accepts the offer. The contract was
concluded on the basis that the sale item is a genuine diamond ring. Subsequently,
when Raymond visits his friend Themba, who specializes in diamond trading, Themba
informs him that the ring is a fake and it is not a genuine diamond ring. It turns
out that the ring was made with inferior materials which were artificial, and even
though the end product appears to look like a diamond ring, it is not.
Discuss fully the type of mistake that is relevant to this question and advise
Raymond if the contract he concluded with Jabu is valid or void. Refer to case law
in your answer. Do not discuss latent defects and breach of contract. And do not
apply the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 to this question.
Note: This assignment question carries 10 marks, so only focus specifically on the
legal issues which are relevant for this question, because your answer must not
exceed one typed page or two written pages.
COMPREHENSIVE ANSWER WITH RATIONALES
Question: Type of mistake and validity of contract
Answer:
1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE TYPE OF MISTAKE
The relevant type of mistake in this scenario is error in substantia – a mistake
relating to the substance, quality, or an essential characteristic of the object of
the contract. Both Jabu and Raymond contracted on the common assumption that the
object of the sale was a genuine diamond ring. However, unbeknownst to both parties
at the time of contracting, the ring was actually a fake manufactured with inferior
artificial materials.
In South African contract law, for a mistake to affect the validity of a contract,
it must be both material (i.e., relating to a fundamental aspect of the agreement)
and reasonable (i.e., the mistaken party was not to blame for the error). This is
known as the iustus error doctrine. According to this doctrine, a mistake renders
a contract void if it excludes consensus (meeting of the minds), meaning there was
no true agreement between the parties.
2. APPLICATION OF THE IUSTUS ERROR DOCTRINE
100% CORRECT AND TRUSTED SOLUTIONS |
UNIQUE NUMBER: 270727 | GRADED A+ | VERIFIED
ANSWERS WITH EXPLANATIONS
TABLE OF CONTENTS-----------------
1. ASSIGNMENT INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS............... PAGE 1
2. COMPLETE ASSIGNMENT QUESTION.......................... PAGE 2
3. COMPREHENSIVE ANSWER WITH RATIONALES.................. PAGE 3
4. QUICK REFERENCE ANSWER KEY............................ PAGE 6
ASSIGNMENT INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS
Module: PVL3702 – Law of Contract
Assignment: 01 (Semester 1, 2026)
Due Date: 31 March 2026 before 15H00
Unique Number: 270727
Total Marks: 10
Format: PDF (Arial, font size 12)
Length: Not exceeding one typed page or two written pages
Coverage: Learning Unit 1 (all 5 lessons); Learning Unit 2 (Lessons 1,2,3,4);
Learning Unit 4 (Lesson 2 only)
INSTRUCTIONS:
- Only one submission attempt permitted.
- Submit the correct PVL3702 Assignment 1.
- Refer to prescribed cases: Kok v Osborne 1993 (4) SA 788 (SE) and
Allen v Sixteen Stirling Investments (Pty) Ltd 1974 (4) SA 164 (D).
- Do not apply the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008.
- Do not discuss latent defects or breach of contract.
DISCLAIMER:
This document is intended for study assistance and reference only. Students are
advised to use this material as a guide and to ensure their final submissions are
original work.
COMPLETE ASSIGNMENT QUESTION
, Jabu owns a jewelry store. He recently bought what he believed to be a genuine
diamond ring for R50 000 from one of his suppliers. Raymond visits the store and
offers Jabu R80 000 for the same ring, and Jabu accepts the offer. The contract was
concluded on the basis that the sale item is a genuine diamond ring. Subsequently,
when Raymond visits his friend Themba, who specializes in diamond trading, Themba
informs him that the ring is a fake and it is not a genuine diamond ring. It turns
out that the ring was made with inferior materials which were artificial, and even
though the end product appears to look like a diamond ring, it is not.
Discuss fully the type of mistake that is relevant to this question and advise
Raymond if the contract he concluded with Jabu is valid or void. Refer to case law
in your answer. Do not discuss latent defects and breach of contract. And do not
apply the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 to this question.
Note: This assignment question carries 10 marks, so only focus specifically on the
legal issues which are relevant for this question, because your answer must not
exceed one typed page or two written pages.
COMPREHENSIVE ANSWER WITH RATIONALES
Question: Type of mistake and validity of contract
Answer:
1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE TYPE OF MISTAKE
The relevant type of mistake in this scenario is error in substantia – a mistake
relating to the substance, quality, or an essential characteristic of the object of
the contract. Both Jabu and Raymond contracted on the common assumption that the
object of the sale was a genuine diamond ring. However, unbeknownst to both parties
at the time of contracting, the ring was actually a fake manufactured with inferior
artificial materials.
In South African contract law, for a mistake to affect the validity of a contract,
it must be both material (i.e., relating to a fundamental aspect of the agreement)
and reasonable (i.e., the mistaken party was not to blame for the error). This is
known as the iustus error doctrine. According to this doctrine, a mistake renders
a contract void if it excludes consensus (meeting of the minds), meaning there was
no true agreement between the parties.
2. APPLICATION OF THE IUSTUS ERROR DOCTRINE
