SUNNINGDALE UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF LAW

LLB – LAW OF CONTRACT ii

FIRST SEMESTER FINAL EXAMINATION, NOVEMBER 2022

INSTRUCTIONS TO CANDIDATES

1. SECTION A: Question 1 is Compulsory.

2. SECTION B: ANSWER 3 OUT OF 5 QUESTIONS

3. TIME ALLOWED: 3 HOURS PLUS 5 MINUTES FOR READING THE

EXAMINATION PAPER

4. NO STATUTE IS PERMITTED IN THE EXAMINATION ROOM

5. CANDIDATES MUST NOT TURN THIS PAGE UNTIL TOLD SO BY THE

INVIGILATOR.
 SECTION A: Compulsory

QUESTION ONE

Question 1

Luthando is an antique dealer and one Saturday in June 2022 he put a Picasso drawing in the
window of his shop with a sign which stated:

"Exceptional piece of 19th century — on offer for 1<5,000. If interested, call

0970000000 or write to P.O. Box 0003, Sunningdale, Lusaka."

Sibongile happened to notice the Picasso drawing as she walked past the shop and thought she
would like to have it. Unfortunately, at the same time, she saw a friend across the hall and
walked over to say hi. By the time the two were done chit chatting, Sibongile felt too lazy to
walk back. So she wrote to Luthando agreeing to buy the Picasso drawing for the stated price of
1<5,000. The letter was posted at 11:30 a.m. on Saturday.

Later on the same day, Helga visited Luthando's shop and said she would like the Picasso
drawing but was only willing to pay K4,000for it. Luthando replied that she would accept
K4,500 for the Picasso drawing, but Helga insisted that she was only willing to pay 1<4,000; and
she left the shop. On her way home however, Helga realised that K4,500 was actually a very
good price for the Picasso drawing. She immediately wrote to Luthando agreeing to buy it for
that price; and her letter was posted at 12:30 p.m.

Just before closing time at 5 p.m., Perez came into Luthando's shop and she also offered K4,000
for the Picasso drawing. This time, Luthando agreed to sell the Picasso drawing at that price; and
Perez promised to return the following Monday with the money.

On Monday morning, Luthando received the two letters from Sibongile and Nthando before
Perez could arrive to pay and collect the Picasso drawing.

Advise Luthando as to his legal relations with Sibongile, Helga and Perez

[40 Marks]
SECTION B: ANSWER 3 OUT OF 5 QUESTIONS

QUESTION TWO

Discuss the rule of remoteness of damages, with reference to the following cases:

i. Hadley v Baxenda/e (1854) 9 Exch 341:

ii. Horne vMid1and Railway (1873) LR 6 CP 131;
iii. Victoria Laundy (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd [1948] 2 KB 528; and
iv. Koufos V.C Czarnikow Ltd (The Heron 11) [1967] UKHL 4.

[20 Marks]

QUESTION THREE

Sithandwa is a security guard at the Orthodox Company Ltd. Although it was never part of his
contract of employment, for many years Sithandwa has been paid a bonus for each recorded
incident. The company is no longer as successful as it was in the past, and it is no longer paying
the bonus to Sithandwa. Sithandwa feels aggrieved as he has had a reduction in pay. He seeks
your advice as to whether or not he is entitled to continue to receive the bonus payment. Advise
Sithandwa. [20 Marks]

QUESTION FOUR

Write short notes on the protection given to a buyer or consumer through the following
legislation:

The Misrepresentation Act;

The Sale of Goods Act; and

The Competition and Consumer Protection Act..

 [20 Marks]

QUESTION FIVE

(a) Explain at least two circumstances in which the Doctrine of Frustration will be held not
to apply.

[8 Marks]

(b) BJ Limited let to the Movie Mania a hall in which they had to perform a series of
concerts on specified dates. Before the date of the first concert the hall was accidentally
destroyed by fire. The Movie Mania is not pleased with what has happened and decides
to approach for advise on what action it may take, if any. Please advise Movie Mania.

[12 marks]

QUESTION SIX

‘An employer is not permitted to protect himself by contract against competition as such on the
part of his former or ex-employees, but he may enforce any agreed restrictions or restraints
which are necessary to protect his legitimate interest.’

With the aid of decided cases, discuss the above statement.

[20 Marks]

QUESTION SEVEN

Compare and contrast the common law rule of estoppel with the equitable rule of promissory
estoppel.

[20 Marks]