HIGHER EDUCATION PROGRAMMES

Academic Year 2022: January-June

General Principles of Contract

Summative Assessment 2:
(HGPLC230-1)

NQF Level, Credit: 6, 10

Weighting: 10%

Assessment Type: Research Essay

Educator: Dominique Kerchhoff

Examiner: Dominique Kerchhoff

Due Date: 27 May 2022

Total 20 Marks

Instructions
1. Summative Assessment 2 (SA 2) must be submitted online before or on the day of the
Summative Assessment 1 (SA 1) sitting.

2. The essay must be a minimum of 600 (six hundred) words, and should not exceed 750 (seven
hundred and fifty) words.

3. The essay structure must be as follows:

● Cover Page:
o Name
o Surname
o Student Number
o Name of your Support Centre (i.e. Boston, Braamfontein)

1 HGPLC230-1-January-June2022-SA2-DK-V2-01022022
● Introduction: Tells the reader what the essay is about.

● Body / Main Content: Is based on research and relates to the essay question or topic that has
been set.
● Conclusion: Is a summary of what has been covered in the essay, it may also include
suggestions / recommendations.
● Reference list: (not included in the word count): the Harvard Referencing Method must be
adhered to with regards to in-text citations and the reference list.
Please make sure you read and adhere to Boston’s Harvard Method of Referencing: A Beginner’s
Guide when referencing, as well as The Beginners Guide to Plagiarism, both are available in the
HE Library module on ColCampus.

4. The essay must be typed, using the following format settings only:
● Font: Arial
● Font Size: 12
● Line Spacing: 1.5

5. For this assessment the following must be adhered to:

● The compulsory source(s) must be accessed using the HE Library module on ColCampus
unless otherwise stated e.g. through a hyperlink.
A Unicheck-verification report will be issued via ColCampus once the assignment is
submitted. Please ensure that you follow the correct steps when uploading your
assignment, to ensure that the verification report is correctly issued. If the verification
report is issued for the incorrect document, or indicates that a 30% similarity rating has
been exceeded, a mark of zero (0) will be awarded.

Compulsory sources:

 Paterson J. 2017. Conversations and agreements – when are they binding? Retrieved from:
https://dommisseattorneys.co.za/blog/conversations-agreements-binding/ [Accessed on 19
March 2021]

 Snymans Inc. 2015. Verbal vs. Written Contracts Retrieved from:

https://www.snymans.com/advice/verbal-vs-written-contracts/ [Accessed on 19 March 2021]

 Weyers, K and Venter, S. 2020. What you do have is my word. And it’s stronger than oak.
Retrieved from:
https://www.cliffedekkerhofmeyr.com/en/news/publications/2020/dispute/dispute-resolution-

2 HGPLC230-1-January-June2022-SA2-DK-V2-01022022
 alert-15-january-What-you-do-have-is-my-word.-And-its-stronger-than-oak..html [Accessed on
19 March 2021]

Additional sources:

 Law Depot. 2019. Are Verbal Contracts Legally Binding Retrieved

from:https://www.lawdepot.com/blog/are-verbal-agreements-legally-binding/ [Accessed on 19
March 2021]

 Pollard H. 2020. Are oral variations of an agreement valid? Retrieved from:

https://www.legaladviceoffice.co.za/legal-advice-services/commercial-law-in-south-africa/251-
are-oral-variations-of-an-agreement-valid [Accessed on 21 March 2021]

 Paterson, J. 2017. Conversations and Agreements – When are they Binding? Retrieved from:
https://dommisseattorneys.co.za/blog/conversations-agreements-binding/ [Accessed on 19
March 2021]

6. Academic sources and accessing credible e-Resources:

Not all sources / texts can be classified as academic sources. Wikipedia, for example, is not a
credible academic source since authors are not identifiable and editing an article on this site is
very easy. Also, blog posts often provide valuable information, but are not academically sound. To
judge whether a source is credible, consider the following criteria:
 The author should be identifiable through author information, affiliations, and/or qualifications.
 An academic source has usually been peer-reviewed.
 Academic textbooks or academic journals should be published by a recognised
authority/publisher like a university, an academic publishing house, research organisation etc.
 A list of references should be present, that is, full citations for sources used. Thorough
reference to research is a crucial characteristic of legitimate academic work.

7. You must make use of the Harvard Method of Referencing. Refer to the examples of
referencing below:
Book, single author:
Holt, D.H. 2017. Management principles and practices. Sydney: Prentice-Hall.

Book, 2 or 3 authors:
McCarthey, E.J., William, D.P. & Pascale, G.Q. 2017. Basic marketing. Cape Town: Juta.

3 HGPLC230-1-January-June2022-SA2-DK-V2-01022022
 Book, more than 3 authors:
Bond, W.R., Smith, J.T., Brown, K.L. & George, M. 2016. Management of small firms. Sydney:
McGraw-Hill.

Book, no author:
Anon. 2009. A history of Greece. Athens: Cengage.
eBook:
Case, J., Marshall, D. & McKenna, S. 2018. Going to university: The influence of higher
education on the lives of young South Africans [E-book]. Cape Town: African Minds. Retrieved
from https://www.africanminds.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/9781928331698_web.pdf
[Accessed 3 June 2019].

Academic journal article with one author:

Waghid, Y. 2019. On the polemic of academic integrity in higher education. South African Journal
of Higher Education, 33(1):1–5.

Academic journal with 2 or more authors:

Waghid, Y. & Davids, N. 2019. On the polemic of academic integrity in higher education. South
African Journal of Higher Education, 33(1):1–5.

Newspaper article from a webpage:

Motshwane, G. 2019. A missed opportunity: Shakes slams Bafana's Afcon plans. Sowetan Live,
7 June. Retrieved from https://www.sowetanlive.co.za/sport/soccer/2019-06-07-a-missed-
opportunity-shakes-slams-bafanas-afcon-plans/ [Accessed 8 June 2019].

Court case:
Gold Circle (Pty) Ltd v Maharaj (1313/17) [2019] ZASCA 93 (3 June 2019).

Web based images (figures, graphs, maps, artwork):

Boston City Campus & Business College. 2019. Welcome [Image]. Retrieved from
https://www.boston.co.za/ [Accessed 3 June 2019].

Music or recording:
Makeba, M. 1960. The Click Song [Recording]. YouTube. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg4Fp-A7IRw [Accessed 8 June 2019].

Chapter in an edited book (collected work):

4 HGPLC230-1-January-June2022-SA2-DK-V2-01022022
 Velez, C. 1978. Youth and aging in central Mexico. In B. Myerhoff & A. Simic (eds.). Life′s career-
aging: Cultural variations on growing old. San Francisco, CA: Sage, 107–162.

8. Boston expects you to approach your work with honesty and integrity. Honesty is the basis of
respectable academic work. Whether you are working on a formative assessment, a project, a
paper (read at a conference), an article (published by a journal), or a summative assessment
essay, you should never engage in plagiarism, unauthorised collaboration (collusion), cheating,
or academic dishonesty.
Plagiarism occurs when a writer duplicates another writer's language or ideas, and then calls the
work their own. Simply put, plagiarism is academic fraud. This includes the ‘copy and paste’ of
work from textbooks, study guides, journal articles, etc. The Plagiarism Declaration, included in
this assessment brief, must be signed and attached to the front of your essay. Refer to the
Plagiarism Information Sheet in your Course Outline for further information.

9. To obtain maximum results, please consult the rubric included in this brief to ensure that you
adhere to and meet all the given criteria.
The following Learning Outcomes are assessed in this assessment:
 The learner must be able to define and discuss the concept of “puffery” in advertising.
 The learner must be able to determine whether “puffery” is acceptable or not in terms of South
African law.
 The learner must be able to provide a well thought out opinion on the subject matter.

5 HGPLC230-1-January-June2022-SA2-DK-V2-01022022
Question 1 (20 marks)
In Phame (Pty) Ltd v Paizes the court dealt with, inter alia, the issue of puffery and the
commending of wares. With respect to ‘puffing’ the court made an attempt to try and define the
concept. It stated that:
‘[r]elevant considerations could include the following: whether the statement was made in answer
to a question from the buyer; its materiality to the known purpose for which the buyer was
interested in purchasing; whether the statement was one of fact or of personal opinion; and
whether it would be obvious even to the gullible that the seller was merely singing the praises of
his wares, as sellers have ever been known to do.’
Required:
With reference to the above, discuss the concept of “puffery” in advertising and whether it is
acceptable in terms of South African law. Also provide your own opinion as to whether you agree
with “puffery” or not.

Tip to students : Your answer should include; but not limited to:
 Discuss/define what ‘puffery’ entails
 Is “puffery” acceptable in South African law
 Discuss when representations “go beyond mere commendation and praise”
 Your own opinion

Compulsory sources:

 De Wet F and Marias M. 2010. Should puffery advertising in South Africa be banned? An
interdisciplinary analysis. Acta Academica. 42(2). 117-144. Retrieved from:
http://scholar.ufs.ac.za:8080/bitstream/handle/11660/2960/academ_v42_n2_a6.pdf?sequence
=1&isAllowed=y [Accessed on 17 December 2021]

 Alberts M. 2008. Where advertising puffery begins and ends. Retrieved from:
https://www.bowmanslaw.com/insights/intellectual-property/where-advertising-puffery-begins-
and-ends-wim-alberts/ [Accessed on 17 December 2021]

Additional sources:

 Kerchhoff D. 2020. False advertising and consumer protection in South Africa. LLM Thesis.
University of the Western Cape. Retrieved from:
https://etd.uwc.ac.za/bitstream/handle/11394/7825/kerchhoff_m_law_2021.pdf?sequence=1&is
Allowed=y [Accessed on 17 December 2022

6 HGPLC230-1-January-June2022-SA2-DK-V2-01022022
 Criteria
Excellent and relevant,
original and thorough
research that presents
Knowledge of authoritative sources and
coherent findings
legal content,
discussing what puffery
merits of
entails; whether it is
argument and acceptable in SA law; and
readability when puffery goes
beyond mere
commendation and
praise.
9-10
Well-formulated,
coherent argument is
presented throughout
the research that
Formulation of
ultimately culminates in a
Argument and
logically consistent and
Conclusion coherent conclusion.
Learner was able to
provide an excellent
thought-out opinion.
5 4
Correct Harvard
referencing used
throughout. At least
relevant sources
Academic
consulted and cited.
Integrity Sources are recognizable
as authoritative legal
academic sources (case
law, journal articles, etc.)
5 4
7 HGPLC230-1-January-June2022-SA2-DK-V2-01022022
Good, relevant, and
original research that
relates to the research
question by providing
insight discussing what
puffery entails; whether
it is acceptable in SA law;
and when puffery goes
beyond mere
commendation and
praise.
7-8
The paper argues in
favour of the conclusion
reached with reference
to the research
presented Learner was
able to provide a good
thought-out opinion.
Correct Harvard
referencing throughout.
At least relevant sources
cited.
Adequate and relevant
research-i.e. Discussing
what puffery entails;
whether it is acceptable in
SA law; and when puffery
goes beyond mere
commendation and praise.
5-6
The paper presents a
coherently formulated
conclusion that is related
to and drawn from the
research presented. The
learner provided an
adequately thought-out
opinion.
3 2
Some correct referencing,
and some sources cited,
but not sufficient to
support the conclusion and
the argument throughout.
3 2
Total
Some original research No original research
performed – information and information. Little
presented. However, the to no attempt at
research does not answering the
substantively relate to the research question.
research question posed.
2-4 0-1
The paper does reach a No conclusion drawn
conclusion, but the from the research
conclusion is not supported presented. No opinion
by or related to the was provided.
research concluded. The
learner gave an opinion not
related to the subject
matter.
0-1
Incorrect referencing or None
irrelevant sources cited.
0-1 /20