Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Theme 1: Introduction
General
A specific contract must always comply with the general requirements for validity (consensus, contractual capacity, legality,
physical possibility, formalities) and parties must have consensus on essentialia of that specific type of contract
Once specific contract is determined through essentialia, we immediately know what the naturalia is
Naturalia: rights and duties each party must comply with and corresponding right and remedies if it is not complied with
If parties agree on particular terms and conditions or exclude certain naturalia in the agreement, it is referred to as incidentalia
Law of purchase and sale has a bearing on all legal rules applied to contracts of sale
Contract of sale is most common / prevalent contract found in practice
Contract of sale: specific, nominated, reciprocal agreement to buy and sell, in terms of which seller has true intention to deliver
a determined or determinable object together with all his rights in object undisturbed, to buyer, and buyer has true intention of
paying a determined or determinable price for object
Theme 2: Essentialia
Nature of the contract
Essentialia:
- nature of the contract
- object sold
- purchase price
Seller and buyer must reach consensus on essentialia before valid contract of sale can exist
They must reveal their intention to buy and sell
If parties only create a pretence of sale, but in reality conclude another type of contract (such as a donation), courts will not
give effect to pretence, but rather to true intention of parties
- Parties must indeed have this intention, and cannot merely be under impression that this intention might be present
Vasco Dry Cleaners v Twycross:
- Facts complicated with consecutive sale of dry cleaning business including equipment
- Court had to determine whether agreement between parties was indeed sale
- Court stated that parties must have consensus on all 3 essentialia
- True intention was not sale, but rather moneylending secured by pledge
- Court will only give effect to true intention of the parties and not pretence of sale
Intention of parties to a contract of sale is to deliver rights of undisturbed use, enjoyment and disposal of object to buyer; in
other words, to enable the buyer to obtain ownership of the object sold
Consequently there can be no question of a contract of sale if there is a stipulation in contract that ownership will not pass to
buyer
Where both the buyer and the seller know that object sold does not belong to seller and that seller is not entitled to sell object,
such as a stolen object, deed of sale is null and void as a result of juridical impossibility of performance (illegality)
Timeshare property
If timeshare scheme is administered as a sectional title scheme, object sold is same as sectional property, but with limitation
that use and enjoyment is allocated to different owners in terms of a time-schedule
Where scheme is administered as a share block scheme or a club, object sold is merely a personal right (and not a real right) to
undisturbed use and enjoyment of an exclusive area allocated to persons entitled to it in terms of a time schedule
Future objects
These objects are only determinable at time of conclusion of contract in terms of certain specifications or occurrence of a
certain event
Object becomes determined / fixed at occurrence of event (exception = emptio spei)
Emptio spei
Purely an aleatory sale and chance determines object sold, thus object sold is fixed as soon as the contract is concluded
E.g., S sells next season’s crop to B for lump sum of R10 000 irrespective of whether crop materialises or not
Generic sale
Object is indicated in general and only individualised later with result that before individualisation – which consists of a
physical and psychological element – object sold is determinable and will be fixed only after individualisation
E.g., 20 bags of cement from all the bags available in the seller’s store
Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 is applicable where suppliers supply goods and / or services to consumers for
consideration in the ordinary course of the suppliers business
If CPA is applicable:
- Future objects (goods) sold by description or sample must in all material aspects and characteristics, as envisaged by an
ordinary alert consumer (purchaser), correspond with delivered object (s 18)
- Before accepting delivery of merx, a consumer is entitled to examine it to make sure it is of type and quality agreed upon
or, if a special order was placed, reasonably match material specifications (s 19)
- If consumer did not have an opportunity to examine merx, or if merx does not comply with implied standard, a consumer
may return merx to a supplier (seller) and cancel agreement within 10 business days (s 20)
- Risk and expense in respect of return of merx in this instance lies with supplier
Res aliena
This is an object of which seller is not owner (does not affect validity of sale)
Seller’s only duty in terms of a contract of sale is to deliver undisturbed use and enjoyment of all his rights in object to buyer
If seller knows that he is not owner of object and proceeds with sale, buyer who acts in good faith will be able to hold seller
liable for fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation – actions could also constitute an offence (theft or fraud)
Where a seller sells a res aliena to a buyer, true owner is, in terms of common law, entitled to claim his property from buyer
with rei vindicatio
This right of owner stems from nemo plus iuris rule, which provides that a person can only transfer rights which he has to
another person – cannot transfer more rights than you have
Where a buyer possesses a res aliena in good faith, true owner can claim his property from buyer only if property still exists
If such a buyer sold property to someone else, true owner cannot claim value of the property from the former buyer
Owner will be able to claim value where buyer, through his negligent or intentional conduct, made it impossible for owner to
reclaim his property
Where a buyer buys a res aliena and acts in bad faith, true owner can claim his property from such a buyer
Where such a buyer is no longer in possession of property or where he has destroyed it, true owner will be able to claim value
of property from buyer
True owner can exercise these rights against all subsequent buyers who act in bad faith
True owner of property is not entitled to exercise his rei vindicatio where:
-
real owner represented to buyer that seller (and not himself) is owner of object sold – doctrine of estoppel will prohibit
true owner from invoking real state of affairs
- object was sold in terms of an order of court and buyer acted in good faith
- an object which, without knowledge on part of curator, does not belong to insolvent estate is sold by a curator who acts in
good faith
- buyer has, by law, a lien or tacit hypothec over object sold
- real owner has instructed a factor to sell object on his behalf, and factor takes purchase price for his own account, while
not being authorised to do so, a buyer, who has acted in good faith, may only be vindicated by real owner compensating
him purchase price
In the event that CPA is applicable:
- every consumer (purchaser) has right to assume, and it is an implied term of every transaction or agreement, that a supplier
(seller) of goods has legal right and authority to supply, sell, provide ownership or lease those goods (s 44)
- A supplier is fully liable for any charge or encumbrance relating to goods (for example the outstanding debt on a car) vis-à-
vis a third party if it is not disclosed in writing before conclusion of transaction, or if supplier and consumer have colluded
to defraud third party (s 44)
Res litigiosa
Res litigiosa doctrine: where a second sale occurs pendente lite (pending litigation), rights of first purchaser must prevail and
are consequently enforceable against second purchaser, irrespective of whether second purchaser acted in good or bad faith
A merx becomes a res litigiosa when summons is served
This is thus an exception to the rule that a real right is stronger than a personal right
Theme 3: Formalities
General
Formalities (as a requirement for conclusion of a valid contract of sale) refers to external visible form required for that specific
contract (such as a written contract, signed by the parties)
General rule of common law is that no formalities are required for a valid or enforceable contract of sale
This general rule still applies to the law of purchase and sale of movable property
However, certain statutory formalities are required for the valid purchase and sale of immovable property
Parties themselves may also (where no statutory formalities are required) agree to certain formalities for their contract
Their intention has to be examined carefully, as two possible reasons for such an agreement could exist:
- that contract will only be valid after the formalities are complied with
- that formalities (such as writing it down) will only serve as proof of an existing contract between the parties, in which
case a valid contract already exists before the formalities are complied with.
However, a written contract need not be a formal document. It can, for example, be contained in a letter or invoice
Where formalities are required by statute, parties cannot, as a general rule, change, exclude or abandon these formalities
through mutual agreement
Important concepts
Terms that are important for interpretation of s 2(1) of ALA:
- Alienate: to sell, exchange or donate, irrespective of fact that it is subject to a suspensive or resolutive condition, and
alienation has a corresponding meaning
o Reason for qualification regarding presence of a suspensive or resolutive condition stems from Corondimas
principle, that when a contract of sale is subject to a true suspensive condition, no sale exists unless and until the
condition is fulfilled
o Although subject to criticism (that a contract does exist yet its enforceability or continuation is affected by such a
condition), this still reflects the law as it stands
- Land includes the following:
o any unit (thus same requirements have to be met where sectional property is sold)
o any right to claim transfer of land
o any undivided share in land
o for purposes of chapters I and II of ALA, also any interest in land, except a right or interest registered or which can
be registered in terms of the Registration of Mining Titles Act 1967. There is a tendency to interpret this aspect of
the definition restrictively, so as to exclude agreements envisaging the acquisition of indirect interests in land
- Deed of alienation: document or documents in terms of which land is alienated, and has a wider meaning than contract.
An interest in land will, inter alia, include a habitatio, usus and ususfructus
Similar formalities for other kinds of immovable property governed by other legislation (e.g., shareblocks, timeshares, etc.)
Clements v Simpson:
S sold an erf, which was still to be subdivided, to C (at the time of conclusion of contract, merx was merely a future merx)
Validity of contract of sale was disputed on grounds that merx had not been adequately described and that s 2(1) of ALA
formalities had not been met
Court laid down general guidelines to determine whether an object sold has been defined correctly in law:
- Absolutely accurate description of object sold is not required. As long as object sold can be reduced to certainty, it is by
itself certain
- It should, however, be possible to determine intention of parties to contract with a reasonable degree of certainty
- Inelegant, unrefined or poor use of language does not automatically affect validity of deed of sale, on condition that
stipulations of contract can still be established with a reasonable degree of certainty
- Test is whether object sold can be identified properly only under deed of sale itself, without extrinsic evidence being
adduced
- As a general rule, there are 2 categories of contract as far as description of merx is concerned – where contract of sale
o itself describes the merx adequately; and
o lays down a workable formula for fixing merx, which is usually case where merx is from a genus or class
- Category applicable to a specific contract is determined by intention of parties and wording of the contract itself
Court held that, despite clumsy and verbose description of merx, parties’ intention to conclude a generic sale could be gleaned
from contract, which was declared valid
Blank spaces
Deeds of sale of land are often drawn up in practice on basis of printed standard format contracts
Blank spaces are left for variable data (such as the purchase price) on these printed standard format contracts, and have to be
completed by hand
These blank spaces are sometimes not completed, which brings validity of the contract into question
Where standard terms of sale had been printed in such fine print as to render them practically illegible, said conditions will not
form part of contract and the parties will not be bound by them, which also influences the validity of the contract
Johnston v Leal:
Standard-form contract where the amount of bond and period within which to procure was left blank
In order to determine effect of incomplete blank space(s) on validity of deed of sale, 3 possible constructions should be
examined
- Intention of parties to contract is that (blank) clause concerned should not form part of the agreement – in this case, clause
is regarded as unwritten, which will have no effect on the validity of the contract
- Intention of parties to contract is that (blank) clause concerned should form part of agreement, and that it should be left
blank until parties have consensus about the content thereof. If the parties have not reached consensus about content of
blank clause and have not completed it accordingly, the contract is null and void, because:
o there is no consensus about all fundamental stipulations of the contract; and
o statutory formality precepts have not been met
- Parties to contract intend blank clause to form part of agreement and in fact there is consensus about content thereof. For
some reason, blank space is inadvertently not completed. In this case the contract is unenforceable but amenable to
rectification, as true intention of parties to contract is not reflected
This contract fell into third category and extrinsic evidence was admitted regarding
- Whether or not blank space forms part of contract
- Why it was left blank
Signature of parties
As a second formal requirement, both parties must sign the deed of alienation
If the parties do not act personally, their representatives must act on their written authority
A party to a contract does not have to sign his name in full
Any mark or initial that identifies the party is sufficient
If CPA requires a document to be signed or initialled, that signing or initialling may be effected in any manner recognised in
law, including an electronic or advanced electronic signature as defined in s 2(3) of ECTA, provided that a supplier takes
reasonable precautions to ensure an electronic signature is not used for any other purpose (s 2(4))
Nevertheless, in terms of s 4(4) of ECTA, a deed of alienation of land may not be concluded by electronic means
Due to fact that an offer and the acceptance thereof can be contained in two different documents, each document must be
signed by both parties to the agreement to effectively form a deed of alienation [ Herselman v Orpen]
Extrinsic evidence is admissible to determine identity of the signatory
An agent can only act on behalf of either a seller or a buyer (as the principal) where a sale of land is concluded, if the agent has
written authority to act on behalf of his principal
Object of this requirement is to minimise the risk of subsequent disputes as to authority of an agent who purports to sign on
behalf of a principal
Written authority must already exist at time of conclusion of the contract and the agent must have knowledge thereof
Agent does not have to be in possession of this authority when he signs the contract
A telegraphic authority is also sufficient
An agent cannot act on behalf of a trust still to be formed – such a deed of alienation will be null and void, because one cannot
act as an agent on behalf of a principal who does not exist at the time of the representative act
A letter of authority by the Master of Supreme Court in terms of s 6(1) of the Trust Property Control Act 57 of 1988 is
required before a trust may enter into a deed of alienation of land
Thorpe v Trittenwein:
- To put quality and effectiveness of a written authority in terms of s 2(1) of ALA in perspective, following aspects have to
be considered:
o Authority does not have to be signed by principal, resulting in possible tarnishing of authenticity thereof.
Declaration of an agent’s authority, written in presence of his principal, will suffice
o Nature of writing and document containing authority is irrelevant
o It is not necessary to identify agent by name in authority
o If agent initially had written authority to enter into the deed of sale, written authority is not required anew for
amendment thereof
- It is difficult to understand how a document of this quality can accord with the legislature’s intention, being the
prevention of uncertainties, exclusion of disputes and avoidance of malpractices.
Previously, a written authority was not required if an agent acted on behalf of a company [s 69 of Companies Act 61 of 1973]
However, Companies Act 71 of 2008 does not have a similar provision
A company, being a legal entity, cannot itself sign any agreement and cannot provide its functionaries with written authority to
sign on its behalf
In terms of s 66(1) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008, business and affairs of a company must be managed by or under
direction of its board, which has the authority to exercise all of the powers and perform any of the functions of the company
except to the extent that Act or the company’s memorandum of incorporation (MOI) provides otherwise
Contracting powers of directors and managers may be declared in MOI, and if not, s 15(3) authorises board to make
supplementary rules relating to the governance of the company in respect of affairs that are not addressed in Act or in MOI
Therefore, board is allowed to make rules delegating powers to administrators of company, such as company’s managing
director
However, a clear distinction must be drawn between a company’s representatives whose authority derives from the company’s
MOI or rules, or from the Act, and those representatives whose authority is founded on an act of authorisation
Former are not agents in the strict sense of the word, and their relationship with company is not governed by the law of agency
These persons are better referred to as company’s organs or functionaries
Functionaries are to be distinguished from persons who have no management powers, either by law or in terms of company’s
MOI or any delegated power granted to them by the company’s functionaries
These persons do not speak and act as the company, but they may be authorised by the company’s functionaries to sign a
contract on behalf of the company, but they then do so as the company’s agents, and their relationship with the company is
governed by the normal principles of the law of agency
Within the framework of legislation governing formalities, it is generally recognised that term “agent” refers to an agent in
strict sense of the word
Therefore, an “agent” for purposes of legislation dealing with formalities does not include a company’s functionaries or
organs, and latter may sign agreements for alienation of land on behalf of a company without being authorised in writing
Persons who are not functionaries of a company may be appointed by company as its agents and be authorised to sign
agreements for the alienation of land on behalf of the company
Authority granted to such agents must be in writing, irrespective of whether agent is a person within organisation of company
or an outsider
If CPA is applicable and an agent falls within the definition of an “intermediary”, they must disclose (and put in safekeeping)
information prescribed by Minister of Trade and Industry (s 27(3)) to any person whom they represent regarding sale or supply
of any property, goods or services
Information to be disclosed includes, inter alia, full identification, services to be rendered, fees, commission and costs payable,
disclosure of any code of conduct which may be relevant and the revealing of dishonest or criminal behaviour
Legator v McKenna:
Mrs S was in a serious motor vehicle accident and suffered severe brain injuries and HC appointed Attorney M as her curator
bonis to manage her affairs and her estate
Acting in his capacity as curator bonis, Attorney M sold Mrs S’s home to Mrs and Mr E for R540 000
Property was transferred into names of Mrs and Mr E by registration thereof in Deeds Office in Pietermaritzburg (KZN) in
April 2002 upon which date the full purchase price was paid into the estate of Mrs S
Mrs S recovered from consequences of her brain injuries and Durban HC declared her capable of managing her own affairs
Later she instituted an action for return of her house (de-registration thereof in Deeds Office) against repayment of purchase
price
Mrs S argued that sale was void as it was not reduced to writing and therefore not compliant with s 2(1) of ALA
Court found that general consequences of non-compliance with s 2(1) where parties performed in full are that purported sale
was never properly concluded
Court held that abstract theory of transfer applied to transfer of both immovable and movable property and that requirements
for the passing of ownership were:
- Delivery - which, in case of immovable property, was effected by registration of transfer in the deeds office
- Real agreement – essential elements thereof is an intention on part of transferor to transfer ownership and intention of
transferee to become owner of property
Abstract theory did not require a valid underlying contract, ownership would not pass – despite registration of transfer - if
there was a defect in the real agreement
There were no defects in real agreement, with result that property was validly transferred to the second respondents
Rule in Wilken v Kohler (if both parties to an invalid agreement had performed in full, neither party can recover their
performance purely on basis that agreement was invalid) is underpinned by idea that, if parties had received exactly what they
had bargained for, they should not be allowed to escape the consequences of a bad bargain by means of an enrichment action
(which is an equitable remedy)
Rule can find application where, despite non-existence of an agreement, parties' intention, or purpose of transaction, was
achieved, but cannot apply where this purpose is prohibited by law
Rule applied equally where agreement was void for non-compliance with statutory formalities
Sale was declared valid by the court
The same consequences are applicable to a contract of sale of land concluded before the commencement of ALA
Any renunciation or surrender of these rights and consequences by the parties is null and void
CPA, if applicable, is, however, silent on consequences of non-compliance with formalities imposed in terms thereof
Where a deed of alienation is terminated as contemplated in s 29A of ALA, every person who received any amount from buyer
shall refund full amount of such payment within 10 days after the said notice was delivered to the seller
Notwithstanding any other right in law and if CPA is applicable, a consumer (purchaser) may return goods to a supplier and
cancel agreement within ten business days if goods were delivered as a result of direct marketing (s 16)
Supplier must then return any payment received from the consumer within 15 business days
Goods are returned in this instance at the consumer’s risk and expense (s 20)
It is also a requirement that a contract has to contain a provision informing a consumer of their right to rescind (“cool-off”)
from contract (s 32) – similar to s 2(2A) of ALA
“Direct marketing” means to approach a consumer, either in person, by mail or electronic communication for direct or indirect
purpose of promoting or offering to supply any goods and services in ordinary course of business or requesting a person to
make a donation of any kind for any reason
Passing of risk
General principles
Doctrine of passing of risk determines whether seller or buyer bears risk where accidental damage is caused to object either by
coincidence or by acts of God, and not by culpable conduct of either party
General rule is that owner suffers loss when his property is destroyed
Seller, while retaining ownership, would bear burden of total or partial destruction of object, without being able to claim
purchase price from buyer
Doctrine of passing of risk causes risk to pass to buyer when sale is perfecta
A contract is perfecta when:
- buyer and seller have intention of buying and selling
- object to be sold is determined. In the case of:
o an emptio rei speratae, object sold is fixed after being measured or weighed
o an emptio spei, object sold is fixed as soon as the contract is concluded
o a generic sale, object sold is fixed after individualisation
- purchase price is determined
- contract is not subject to a suspensive condition
Result is that buyer bears risk where object is damaged or destroyed through coincidence or an act of God
Buyer is still liable to pay purchase price even where seller has not yet delivered the object to him
This is a naturale of any contract of sale and parties may by agreement exclude or change it
Fault No fault
(Intent / (coincidence / acts
Negligence) of God)
Movable property
A buyer will only obtain ownership (a real right) of movable property where:
- seller is the owner of the object sold
- both parties have the intention to pass ownership from the seller to the buyer
- where it is a cash sale:
o seller must deliver the object to the buyer
o buyer must pay the purchase price;
- where it is a credit sale:
o only requirement is delivery of object to the buyer
o price does not have to be paid to transfer ownership, as is case with a cash sale, but parties could agree that ownership
only passes when price has been paid
Payment of purchase price
Cash sale
Cash sale exists where both parties intend to effect delivery and payment of purchase price at same time, or at least on same
day
Rebuttable presumption exists that each sale is a cash sale unless parties expressly or tacitly agree that it is a credit sale
Mere delivery of object sold to buyer does not constitute a credit sale
If payment has to be made in cash (thus, at same time as delivery or at least on same day), seller is entitled to reclaim object
from buyer within a reasonable time if he does not receive payment from buyer
If he does not do so, his actions could constitute a change of intention of parties, in that parties intend sale to be a credit sale
- In this case, buyer will receive ownership through mere delivery of object sold
What is seen as a reasonable time will depend on facts and circumstances of each case
In terms of Insolvency Act, 10 days is a reasonable time for a seller to reclaim object delivered in terms of a contract of sale
Statutory period can be used as a broad guideline for the determination of a reasonable time
Credit sale
Tacit granting of credit
If seller tacitly provides credit to buyer, ownership passes to buyer through mere delivery of object sold
Grosvenor Motors v Douglas:
- D sold a car to K and after concluding sale, K told D that he did not have his cheque book with him
- D gave K opportunity to travel with the car to fetch a cheque
- D had mislaid car’s registration documents, and K asked for a letter to effect that D had sold him car before his departure
- K’s cheque in payment of purchase price was handed to D the following day, but 2 days later, D was informed that cheque
had been dishonoured because no such account existed
- Meanwhile, K had resold the car to G
- D succeeded with a claim based on rei vindicatio for return of car by G – G appealed
- Legal question: in whom was ownership of car vested?
o If it was a cash sale, ownership did not pass to K because there was no payment
o If it was a credit sale, ownership would have passed to K upon delivery of the car
- Appellate Division held that mere delivery of a merx did not constitute credit sale, and that credit sale was not intended
- G contended that because cheque had been drawn on a place other than place where it was handed over as payment, time
had elapsed between delivery and payment which indicated that credit had been granted
- Appellate Division rejected this argument
- According to the court, letter given by D to K did not entitle K to sell the car to G, nor did it prevent D from instituting
rei vindicatio
- Court further held that negligence was a requirement for estoppel, and since D was found not to have been negligent in
giving letter to K, doctrine of estoppel found no application in circumstances
- Appeal was dismissed, and D could proceed to claim return of car from G with the rei vindicatio
In general, the following would constitute tacit granting of credit:
- seller accepts security for payment of purchase price (such as a pledge, bond or surety)
- parties agree on an interest rate for payment of interest on purchase price
- granting of credit can be deduced from previous transactions between parties
- where it is customary for that commercial transaction to be concluded on a credit basis
- seller accepts a post-dated bill of exchange or cheque as payment
- seller does not insist on immediate payment, or does not reclaim object sold within a reasonable time even though parties
agreed on a cash sale
Payment by cheque
Cheque is not legal tender
Sale is not a credit sale, and ownership is not transferred to the buyer merely by delivery of the object sold
Sale is not a cash sale, and ownership is not transferred to the buyer when payment is made by cheque
Intention of the parties determines whether it is a cash or a credit sale
Payment by cheque is a conditional payment and will only be made when amount represented by cheque is actually paid to
seller
Post-dated cheque suggests tacit granting of credit, where ownership passes to buyer on mere delivery of object sold
If a cheque is drawn in one place payable on demand, but is collected in another place, payment will only be made when
amount is actually paid to seller
- Fact that a considerable lapse of time arises between time when cheque is drawn and when it is collected (paid out) does
not cause it to be a credit sale, unless parties to contract have expressly or tacitly intended it to be so
Forms of delivery
Immovable property
Immovable incorporeal property (such as servitudes) is delivered through registration of cession of rights in terms of
Registration of Deeds Act 47 of 1937
Immoveable corporeal property (such as land) is delivered through registration in terms of Registration of Deeds Act
Movable property
Movable incorporeal property (such as debts) is delivered through cession
For movable corporeal property, delivery can be effected in different ways:
Actual delivery / delivery in its literal form (de manu in manum)
Most common form
Object sold is handed physically by seller to buyer
Delivery with the short hand (traditio brevi manu)
Buyer is already physically in possession of object sold and delivery takes place by change of intention of buyer and seller
E.g., where buyer, before concluding deed of sale, rents a car from seller and later decides to buy car. Buyer remains in
possession of car and delivery takes place through change of intention of parties to contract
Constitutum possessorium
This method of delivery is opposite of delivery with short hand
Delivery takes place through change of intention of buyer and seller, but seller remains, after contract has been concluded,
physically in possession of object sold
E.g., S sells a car to P, but at same time S and P agree that S will rent car from P. Therefore S (seller) remains physically in
possession of car after contract has been concluded
Attornment
Object sold is physically in possession of a third party and delivery takes place through a change of intention of buyer and
seller
Before deed of sale is concluded, third party keeps object on behalf of seller, but after conclusion thereof intention of
buyer and seller is that third party should keep object on behalf of buyer
E.g., car is placed by seller in possession of a panel-beater for repairs and car is sold during this period of repair. Before
contract is concluded panel-beater keeps car on behalf of seller, but after contract has been concluded, panel-beater keeps
car on behalf of purchaser. Consequently delivery has taken place through change of intention of the parties to contract
Mere notice to third party of this change of intention is sufficient and no co-operation of third party in respect of this
change of intention is required
Symbolic delivery
Delivery takes place by seller placing buyer in possession of a symbol by means of which buyer gains control over object
sold
E.g., Lendalease Finance
Delivery through marking
Delivery takes place by marking object(s) bought or sold
E.g., where part of a flock of sheep is bought, sheep forming part of object sold can be marked by a yellow mark on hind
leg. Delivery takes place as soon as yellow marks are made on the hind legs of the sheep concerned
Delivery with the long hand
Delivery takes place in that object sold is pointed out by seller to purchaser with intention that ownership should pass
Clavium traditio
Delivery by handing keys to or for an object to the purchaser
This is not a form of symbolic delivery, but handing over of possession and control
If party delivering retains a duplicate of the keys, delivery is deficient
Object delivered
Seller must deliver object agreed upon and all accessories required for proper use and enjoyment of object (i.e., car’s keys)
Seller must also deliver to buyer all benefits which accrued after contract became perfecta (i.e., calves of cows sold)
Date of delivery
Parties may agree on a date for delivery
If no agreement was reached, seller must deliver object sold within a reasonable time
Facts and circumstances of each case will determine what is a reasonable time
Place of delivery
Seller must deliver object sold to buyer at place agreed upon
If no agreement was reached, delivery must be effected at place where contract was concluded, or at business or home of seller
Double sales
A double sale takes place when a seller sells same object to two different purchasers
Two possibilities are at issue:
- Neither first buyer (B1) nor second buyer (B2) has already acquired ownership of object bought or sold
o He who is first in time, is preferred in right
o Legal claim of buyer with whom seller first concluded a deed of sale enjoys preference above legal claim of a buyer
with whom the seller later concluded a deed of sale
o B1 can enforce his legal claim in terms of deed of sale against seller and B2 or protect it by means of an interdict
o If B2 had been unaware of first deed of sale, he has a contractual claim on basis of: eviction; mora debitoris;
rendering performance impossible; or repudiation against seller
- If either first buyer (B1) or second buyer (B2) has already acquired ownership, personal right of buyer who did not
become owner is subordinate to real right of buyer who did become owner of object sold, provided that latter was unaware
of other contract of sale
o (Prejudiced) buyer without ownership has a contractual claim based on eviction, mora debitoris, rendering
performance impossible or repudiation against seller, provided he did not know of other contract of sale
o In terms of doctrine of notice, a purchaser who knows that merx has been sold to another, may, in spite of having
obtained transfer or delivery, be forced to hand it over to prior purchaser ( Meridian Bay Restaurant v Mitchell)
o Doctrine of notice appears to be inconsistent because it allows holder of a personal right to prevail over holder of a
real right
According to res litigiosa doctrine, where merx is subject matter of a lawsuit and a second sale occurs pending a lawsuit, rights
of first purchaser must prevail and are enforceable against second purchaser, irrespective of whether second purchaser acted in
good or bad faith
General principles
Buyer does not become owner of object sold by mere conclusion of a valid contract of sale
Seller is also not obliged to transfer ownership to buyer except where he himself is owner of object sold
Seller is obliged to give buyer a warranty against eviction
- Warranty applies ex lege and is part of naturalia of sale – parties may agree that warranty be excluded ( Plitt v Imperial
Bank)
- Reason for eviction must already be present at the time of conclusion of the contract
Eviction takes place when it appears that temporary deprivation of possession has become permanent
Where eviction is merely a threat, buyer has no cause of action against seller
Forms of eviction
True owner of object sold claims his property from buyer
Third party obtains possession of property and buyer cannot claim this property from third party due to a defective title
In terms of rule that lease goes before sale (huur gaat voor koop), buyer is sometimes obliged to allow lessee to use and enjoy
property until lease expires
Holder of a limited real right (such as holder of a servitude of right of way), may prevent buyer from having full use and
enjoyment of object sold
The rules
As a general rule, buyer must not surrender object to someone threatening him with eviction
Buyer must notify seller of threatened eviction
- Purpose of notification is to enable seller to assist buyer, or to put up a defence against claim of third party
- Notification must be given in sufficient time to enable seller to prepare his defence and to assist buyer in proving his title
- Buyer has to notify the seller even if the seller has already received knowledge of eviction
- Where seller cannot be found, or intentionally avoids notification, buyer is relieved from any further duty – deemed to be
sufficient if he delivers notification to seller’s last known address
As soon as seller receives notification of threatened eviction, he can:
- take cession of the buyer’s rights and intervene
- assist the buyer and furnish the necessary proof of title
- be joined as a party to the lawsuit
- do nothing
Where buyer does not effectively notify seller of eviction, or where seller does not assist buyer in lawsuit, buyer must put up a
forcible / virile defence against claim of third party before he can hold seller liable
- Circumstances of each case will determine whether defence is forcible or not
- Buyer must act as a reasonable litigant in lawsuit – if buyer does not defend lawsuit or fails to put up an available
defence, he is not acting as a reasonable litigant
Partial eviction
Following possibilities exist (Lammers and Lammers v Giovannoni) :
- where eviction has left buyer with so little a remainder of object sold that it cannot be said that a reasonable man would
have bought same, buyer may cancel contract, claim repayment of purchase price and payment of damages, provided that
he offers to return remains of object sold to seller
- where portion evicted is not of such a substantial nature, and remains of object sold can be effectively used, buyer may
retain remains and claim a pro rata repayment of purchase price as well as damages from seller
- F sued C for payment of purchase price, but C counterclaimed for delictual damages suffered as a result of defect in merx
- Court held that problem in this case was not that there was a latent defect in merx, but that merx delivered was different
from that which had been purchased, thus F was not entitled to rely on the voetstoots clause
o Dealing with non-performance, not defective performance – voetstoots clause does not offer a defence to F
- If voetstoots clause in this case were to be enforced, it would: result in an infringement of a statutory provision; be
unreasonably harsh and oppressive; be against public policy
Remedies are 2 aedilitian actions:
- Actio redhibitoria (to claim restitution)
- Actio quanti minoris (to claim reduction in purchase price)
- The buyer cannot claim damages with these actions
Contractual warranties
Seller may give an express or tacit contractual warranty against latent defects
He warrants that object sold does not have any latent defects or that it can be used for purpose for which it was bought
Tacit warranties differ from warranties by operation of law, because the latter are not given expressly
To determine whether a tacit warranty was given or not, examine:
- facts of each case
- evidence of parties
- all circumstances
- Where it can be deduced on a balance of probabilities that a tacit warranty was in fact given, such a warranty will be
acknowledged and enforced
Guarantees distinguished from
misrepresentations and sales talk
Misrepresentation: untrue declaration made within or out of contractual context (can be fraudulent, negligent or innocent)
Where misrepresentation forms part of a contractual clause, aggrieved person is entitled to usual contractual remedies for
breach of contract
Where misrepresentation is made out of contractual context, malefactor incurs delictual liability for damages, on condition that
misrepresentation was made intentionally or negligently and all other requirements for delictual liability are present
Sales talk: declarations praising (marketing) object sold, which merely represents an opinion and is neither a guarantee nor a
misrepresentation
If such sales talk is untrue, buyer has no right of recourse against seller
Actio empti is available for contractual warranties, while aedilitian actions are available for implied warranties (seldom used
for contractual warranties as it provides no damages)
Actio empti
Grounds for institution
Warranty against latent defects
Seller may give buyer an express or tacit contractual warranty against latent defects in the object sold
Where defects are present, buyer may institute actio empti
Aedilitian actions
Available to buyer where latent defect is present in object sold and no express or tacit contractual warranty was given by seller
Also available where latent defects are present and express or tacit contractual warranty was given by seller
o Buyer will in this case seldom use these actions, as they do not provide him with a claim for damages
In order to encourage B to proceed with transaction, an addendum was added to deed of sale specifying that V
would transfer guarantee on thatch roof to B – problem with leaking roof persisted
B’s claim for a reduction in purchase price was based on actio quanti minoris, fraudulent misrepresentation
derived from an invalid roof repair guarantee, and actio ex empto
B had to prove that V had essential knowledge of latent defects in roof, and fraudulently concealed it from B
SCA held that one must objectively evaluate facts to ascertaining whether V knew of latent defects and had,
with intent to defraud B, concealed these defects – any conclusion must be drawn exclusively from facts
revealed by evidence
V was aware of ineffective support structure, incomplete repair, and that guarantee had expired, which he
fraudulently concealed
B entitled to difference between purchase price of house and its value with defective roof – no evidence of
market price of house with defective roof at time of sale, thus court took repair cost as a gauge to determine
amount to be awarded
- Seller expressly or tacitly guaranteed presence of good characteristics or absence of bad characteristics
- Seller made a false dictum et promissum to buyer
o Dictum et promissum: declaration made by seller during negotiations with regard to qualities and characteristics of
object sold, and which is more than mere recommendation or praise
o In general, such false dictum et promissum is equated with an innocent misrepresentation
Actions are also available in contracts of purchase and sale for corporeal and incorporeal object, where object does not contain
a latent defect but has merely been misrepresented as being something which it is not
It does not matter whether defective or misrepresented object was object of a sale or barter
- Aedilitian actions are equally applicable to an object forming part of the purchase price
Remedies
If goods do not comply with requirements and standards of s 55, a consumer may return goods within six months after delivery
to supplier (without penalty) at supplier’s risk and expense (s 56)
This remedy may pose a practical problem where goods are immovable property and transfer thereof into name of consumer
and registration of a bond over it has been effected
If goods are returned, a supplier must, at direction of consumer, repair or replace defective goods, or refund purchase price (s
56) provided that if a supplier repairs any goods unsuccessfully, they must, within 3 months of failed repair, replace it or
refund purchase price (s 56)
- Uncertain whether 6-month limitation has reference to life span of implied warranty (in which case a voetstoots clause
may become operational after 6 months from conclusion of an agreement), or execution of remedies (in which case
implied warranty will exist indefinitely and normal prescription rules regarding institution of a claim will prevail)
These six- and three-month periods may not be extended by a court
Miscellaneous Duties
Buyer has following duties where a contract of sale exists:
- For immovable property, buyer has to pay transfer costs and transfer duty, but it is seller’s obligation to pay VAT
- For immovable property, buyer has to pay occupational rent to seller where he had already enjoyed occupation of
property before registration thereof in his name
- Buyer has to deliver all benefits (such as rent) which accrued to object sold before contract became perfecta, to seller,
unless otherwise contracted
Option
Option: contract in terms of which person holding option has a personal right towards person granting option, that an existing
offer to buy or sell should be held open for a determined / determinable period for exclusive acceptance of option holder
If seller is person granting option, they may not withdraw their irrevocable offer to sell property during this period to
somebody else
Should offer to sell be accepted by person holding option, a second contract, namely a deed of sale between person holding
option and person granting option, is brought about
If person holding option decides to accept offer, person granting option is obliged to abide by stipulations of deed of sale that
has been brought about (which includes all terms of offer to sell)
Should this option not be exercised by person holding option, option contract, together with offer to sell, is terminated
Immovables
ALA requires certain formalities (writing and signature) for conclusion of a valid deed of sale of immovables
Uncertain whether these formalities are also applicable in case of pre-emptive rights and options dealing with immovables
Unit 2: Letting and Hiring of things
(lease)
Theme 1: Introduction and Essentialia
Introduction
Definition shows essentials that parties must have consensus on for agreement to be a valid contract and lease agreement
- Lease: reciprocal agreement where one party (lessor) undertakes to confer upon another party (lessee) temporary use and
enjoyment of a particular thing in exchange for a counter-performance
When dealing with lease agreements, always start with contract itself (particular agreement between parties)
- First step: is it a valid contract? (look at general requirements)
- Second step: what kind of contract is it? Is it a lease? (look at essentialia)
- Third step: if it is a lease agreement, what are rights and duties (and remedies) that naturally flow from this type of lease
agreement? (look at naturalia)
- Fourth step: have parties tailored / changed their rights and duties in any specific way? Have extra terms been added or
any amendments made to naturalia? (look at incidentalia)
Parties to general lease agreements are called:
- Lessor (landlord)
- Lessee (tenant)
Sources of law
Legislation applies with common law (look at legislation first and common law second)
There is particular legislation for different types of lease agreements
Common law recognises 3 types of lease agreements:
- Letting and hiring of things
- Letting and hiring of service
- Letting and hiring of work
As types of lease agreements developed, legislative intervention was necessary to make sure that each type is properly
governed and regulated, for example:
- Rent Control Act (RCA)
o Places limits on amount of rent that can be charged in respect of certain lease agreements and limits grounds on
which lessees could be evicted
o Was repealed by the RHA
- Rental Housing Act (RHA)
o Applies to renting of immovable property for residential purposes (thus only applicable to residential leases)
o Has been amended by Rental Housing Amendment Act (RHAA), which was signed by President and published in
Government Gazette, but has not yet come into force
- CPA:
o S 14 has severe consequences for residential and commercial property
o Applies when lessor supplies access to property for consideration in his ordinary course of business to lessee
o Definition of ‘rental’ in CPA is wide enough to include residential and commercial leases
- Prevention of Illegal Eviction from Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE)
All these legislative interventions stem from s 26 of Constitution (housing clause)
Definitions
RHA
Lease: an agreement of lease concluded between a tenant and a landlord in respect of a dwelling for housing purposes
Dwelling: includes any house, hostel room, hut, shack, flat, apartment, room, outbuilding, or similar structure which is leased
From definition of lease, we can see following:
- In order to be regulated by RHA, lease has to be residential in nature (whenever leased property is residential in nature,
RHA will apply to relationship between lessor and lessee)
- If lease is agricultural or commercial, there is protection under other Acts and common law rights
Primary purpose of RHA
- Regulate relationship between lessor and lessee
- Give effect to s 26 of Constitution
- Regulate particular rights and duties of parties
o Apart from rights and duties that naturally flow from a lease agreement (naturalia and common law), RHA gives
additional rights and duties that both parties must comply with
RHA also established Rental Housing Tribunal (RHT)
- When dealing with a residential issue, can approach RHT first, then court
- RHT is a judicial body / institution established to deal with disputes between lessors and lessees
- Tries to settle disputes in an alternative way and keep issue from going to court (which is expensive)
- This is a way to assist tenants who cannot afford attorney’s
- Provisions of the RHA are enforced by RHT
Maphango and Others v Aengus Lifestyle Properties:
- Deals with importance of RHT and broad meaning of ‘unfair practice’
- Tenants argued that termination of their lease agreements was an unfair practice because landlord just wanted to get them
out of building so that he could improve property and increase rent
- SCA held that landlord’s conduct does not comply with definition of ‘unfair practice’ because ‘practice’ means that
conduct has occurred multiple times
- CC held that, even if something only occurs once, it can still be an unfair practice
- CC referred issue back to RHT and held that it must make final decision on matter (importance of RHT)
- Unfair practice: any act or omission by a landlord or tenant in contravention of RHA, or a practice unreasonably
prejudicing rights or interests of a tenant or landlord (s 1 of RHA)
CPA
Broader scope than RHA
Definition of ‘rental’ in CPA is wide enough to include residential property / lease and commercial property / lease
Service (s 1): including access to, or use of premises or other property in terms of a rental agreement
Remember when CPA applies (supplier supplies services to consumer in ordinary course of business for consideration)
- Lessor qualifies as supplier if they supply services in ordinary course of business
- Lessee qualifies as a consumer if they are a natural person or if they are a juristic person below R2 million threshold
General
Apart from general requirements, parties must also reach consensus on:
- Leased property
- Temporary transfer of use and enjoyment of property
- Nature and extent of counter performance
o Counter-performance = rent payable
Essentialia is important because once it is established, common law rights, duties, and remedies become automatically
applicable (these are naturalia)
- Depending on type of lease agreement, legislation like RHA and CPA may also become applicable
Increase of rental
RHA is very clear on how increase of rental works
A good lease agreement always deals with the increase of rental in the actual contract
In theory, one party must not have absolute discretion at determining the rental
In practice, it can be discretion of a single party (landlord) to increase rental – whether increase amounts to an unfair practice
is a separate issue where we must look at facts and circumstances of case (such as reason behind increase)
General rule: if there is a unilateral increase of rent by lessor, even though it might not be a valid increase, if lessee gets
enough notification of increase beforehand, notification / increase is done in a clear and fair way, and increase is reasonable
taking into account area or type of property being leased, lessor is justified to increase rental
- In other words, landlord is allowed to increase rent, but it must just be done in right way and for right reasons
Benlou Properties v Vector Graphics:
- Deals with the counter performance / the rental and confirms a few basic principles in our law of lease:
o Since counter-performance is part of essentialia, rent must be determined or at very least determinable
- Lessor had discretion to increase rental if expenses increased, which makes practical sense
- However, court confirmed general rule is that rental cannot be left to sole discretion of only one of parties
o Although one party may have power to increase rent unilaterally, this party may not be given an absolute discretion to
do so – discretion must be exercised according to an objective standard
- In casu, lessor did not have an unqualified discretion to increase rental, because actual agreement contained an objective
standard of increase of rental under circumstances, and was therefore allowed
Duties of lessor
Impact of CPA
S 54 deals with defective goods that form part of a leased property or defective service
S 54: where a supplier undertakes to perform a service for consumer, consumer is entitled to delivery of goods that are free of
defects and of a suitable / reasonable quality (except where particular defects have been specifically excluded from this duty
by way of agreement between the parties, subject to s 49)
S 54 duties extend to maintenance of leased property by lessor
Second duty of lessor – maintenance of
leased property
Lessor must maintain property for duration of lease unless otherwise agreed (in incidentalia)
Parties can tailor this duty (e.g., transfer, limit, change) – as long as there is consensus, contract is still valid
- If parties tailor this duty by placing it on lessee, it will be construed more strictly because it goes against normal naturalia
/ common law rule
Scope of duty depends on arrangement between parties (agreement determines scope)
- If there is no agreement, common law principles determine scope of duty
- Common law says that property must be maintained in such a way that it is suitable for purpose for which it was hired /
leased (confirmed in Mpange case)
This duty excludes:
- Repairing of damage caused by lessee or persons they are responsible for
- Minor repairs that are not attributed to age or quality of property
o This is normal wear and tear of residential property or when thing leased is used regularly
o Minor repairs are lessee’s duty to fix because they are using and enjoying thing for a period of time (there is a
presumption that lessee caused damage through their use and enjoyment of object)
o E.g., replacement of windowpanes or door handles
If lessor fails to fulfil duty of maintenance or delivery (1 st and 2nd duty), they are in breach of contract and lessee is entitled to:
- Normal / general contractual remedies:
o Specific performance
o Rescission
o Damages
o Reduction of rent
- Specific remedies:
o Lessee themselves undertakes repairs (and recovers costs from lessor)
o Remedies in terms of CPA
Rescission / cancellation
Only granted if there is a material breach of contract
It is a material breach if property is defective in a very essential aspect
- Essential aspects: particular agreement, particular type of leased property, and content of contract
- Thus, if essentialia of contract is defective, then it is a material breach
Important question to ask: would a reasonable person continue with the contract taking into account this defect?
- Defect must be of such a nature that a reasonable person would not have continued with the lease
Also applicable where leased property was delivered late, but then time must have been of essence to contract (lessee can
cancel or rescind contract under such circumstances)
If parties included a cancellation clause in contract, then cancellation clause is an incidentalia and must be adhered to
- If contract allows cancellation under certain circumstances, then contract must be cancelled in terms of that clause
- Cancellation clause is also called lex commissoria
Damages
Lessee can only claim damages if they can prove that they actually suffered damages
Court will always consider whether lessee also attempted to minimize damages suffered and whether such damages were
foreseeable by lessor at time of contracting
Lessor must place lessee in position he would have been in had no breach of maintenance duty occurred
Reduction of rent
General rule: reduction of rent is always in proportion to reduced enjoyment of property
Initial common law position before legal development: lessee could refuse to pay rental whilst remaining in property if
property was not maintained
Arnold v Viljoen:
- Liability to pay rent by lessee depends on occupation itself and not on use and enjoyment – as long as lessee is in
occupation of property, they must pay full rent
- Only after lessee has vacated property, can they claim damages in form of reduction in rent
o Liability to pay rent depends on occupation itself – not on whether occupation was beneficial
- Technically speaking, if lessee vacates the property, that is also a cancellation of agreement
Steynberg v Kruger:
- Disagreed with Arnold case
- Court said: if lessee is entitled to cancel agreement (because of breach of duty) but chooses not to, lessee should be able
to claim a reduction in rental and damages
Ntshiqa v Andreas Supermarket and Thompson v Scholtz (current legal position):
- Held that it is not necessary for lessee to vacate leased property before claiming reduction in rent as a form of damages
- Even if lessee is not entitled to cancel agreement, reduction of rent is not connected to occupation of property but directly
with reduced use and enjoyment because lessor is not complying with this duty
- Pothier’s rule was confirmed in this case:
o Reduced rental is in proportion to the reduced use and enjoyment
o Lessee doesn’t have to vacate the property before lessee can use this remedy
Mpange v Sithole:
- Landlord leased out rooms in a dangerous building to vulnerable lessees (homeless people living in slum conditions) –
even though there was no written lease agreement, lessor did not comply with his common law duties to maintain property
in a reasonably fit condition
- Because these were destitute lessees, remedies usually applied in practice was not going to work in this scenario – court
tried to assist these lessees and develop our law at the same time
- Destitute lessees could not just cancel contract, claim damages, and find somewhere else to live – homelessness was only
alternative
- Court held: there must be a reduction in rental in relation to reduced use and enjoyment – reduction in rent must last until
the property was repaired
- Court stated that unless lessor complies with his duties to maintain property, he will not receive full rent he is entitled to
- This forced lessor to upgrade and maintain the property and lessees were entitled to stay in occupation
- Court had to develop common law in terms of s 39(2) of Constitution and grant orders for specific performance
- Court further held that reduction in rent is also appropriate in these circumstances (thus 2 remedies applied at once)
- Where lessee pays rent despite a defect in leased property, lessee is entitled to reduction in rent proportional to diminished
use and enjoyment of the thing
Lessor sells property during lease period (without notification) / Disturbance by a 3rd party with a better title
In Roman law:
- Lessee had no rights against new owner – nothing the lessee could do against the new owner
- New owner had a stronger real right (ownership) in property that outweighed personal right of lessee
- Lessee must be forced to vacate (but they could still claim damages from the previous owner for breach)
In Roman-Dutch law: (current law)
- HGVK principle developed and was adopted in SA law to assist lessees in these circumstances
- It is unfair towards lessee who has to vacate just because lessor sold property to someone else
In South African law (aka how HGVK rule applies in SA):
- HGVK principle states that lease contract continues and enjoys priority over the sale contract
- This means that personal right of lessee has effect of becoming a real right, albeit limited, against the new owner
- There is 1 requirement that must be met for rule to operate: lessee must be in occupation of property when it is
transferred to new owner
- New owner is bound to essential terms of lease (e.g., if there is an option in lease agreement to renew lease and lessee
decides to renew in accordance with this, new owner must step back)
- New owner steps into shoes of previous owner and new owner may also become new lessor
- There is no formal cession of rights. Two things happen by operation of law:
o The new lessor has to comply with the previous lessor’s duties
o Lessee has to pay new owner/lessor compensation for use and enjoyment of property instead of previous lessor
HGVK rule has a certain duration of protection for lessee, which depends on whether contract is a short-term or long-term
- Short term lease – anything less than 10 years
o Rule will operate for term of the original lease agreement
- Long term lease – more than 10 years
o If it is a registered long-term lease in deeds office, rule operates for the full period of the registration
o If it is an unregistered long-term lease, protection is only for the first 10 years (if the lessee is in occupation)
Duties of lessee
Eviction
Eviction has to do with the rei vindicatio (claiming back possession of property)
Court may allow a reasonable period for lessee to vacate
Eviction is a court order where court orders lessee to vacate property and pay damages (if any)
There are rules for residential property and various legislation that must be considered when it comes to eviction:
- S 26(3) of Constitution: court must consider all relevant circumstances before granting an eviction order
- Prevention of Illegal Eviction from Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE)
o There are special procedural rules to evict an unlawful occupier
o ‘Unlawful occupier’ can include an occupier that used to be lawful (like lessee who is holding over after lease ends)
or someone who never had permission to occupy property (there was no lease agreement to begin with)
RHA also addresses issues regarding eviction:
- Terms in Chapter 3 of RHA are deemed to be included in residential lease agreements even if parties didn’t expressly
mention them in agreement (implied terms):
o Lessor must furnish lessee with a written receipt of all payments made between them
o Receipt must contain all necessary information (e.g. address, date etc.)
o Deposit must not exceed the amount agreed upon
o Lessor must invest deposit into an interest-bearing account at a financial institution; lessee can ask for written proof
of this at any time
o Before lessee occupies property, both parties must inspect dwelling and make a list of defects
o After lessee moves out, both parties must inspect dwelling within 3 days before lease expires
o Upon expiry of lease, lessor may apply with deposit and interest to settle lessee’s outstanding amounts
o If there are no outstanding amounts, full deposit must be returned to lessee within 7 days of lease expiration date
o If lessee vacates property without notification, lease is deemed to have expired on date lessor established that lessee
had vacated dwelling
o Copy of house rules must be attached to the lease agreement
- Rights listed above cannot be waived
o Even if landlord attempts to waive these rights in agreement, these clauses will not be applicable nor enforceable
- RHA includes:
o There shouldn’t be discrimination (lessor must not discriminate against a lessee based on their race, gender etc.)
o Rights of the lessee (e.g., right to privacy)
o Rights of the lessor (e.g., right to regular payment)
o Particular remedies
Termination of lease
Lease agreement can be terminated in same way as normal contracts, e.g., fulfilment of contract; agreement; set-off;
prescription; supervening impossibility of performance
Additional ways in which a lease agreement can be terminated:
- Effluxion of time - Death (not always)
- Notice - Dissolution of partnership
- Recission (as result of breach of contract) - Insolvency
Effluxion of time
General rule (if CPA does not apply): if a lease is concluded for a specific period of time or until a specific event, then it will
terminate automatically on that event and no notice is required
Legislative intervention to make this concept less litigious in practice (e.g., s 14 of CPA)
If both parties are juristic persons, s 14 does not apply to contract
If s 14 applies to a lease, it must be read in conjunction with Regulation 5 (exception to rule):
- If s 14 applies to a lease, then that lease agreement is not allowed to be for more than 24 months
- Regulation 5: can be longer if lessor can show that lessee expressly agreed for a longer period and that there was a
demonstrable financial benefit for lessee
What happens after the expiry (if s 14(2) CPA applies):
- CPA will apply if there has been no agreement on when lease will terminate (and it is a fixed-term lease)
- General rule: lease will continue on a month-to-month basis unless lessee wants termination or agrees to renewal
- Has to be notification of impending expiry of fixed term contract (otherwise landlords can be open to situations where
lessees can continue on a month-to-month basis)
o Must be between 40 – 80 business days before expiry
o Notice must include information with regard to material changes if lessee agrees to renewal or stays on after expiry
o In practice, usually there is an increase in rental every year or period
o Increase in rental is a material change (notification is necessary)
- Important to address this in contract, or else s 14 will automatically apply (lessee will be allowed to rent on a month-to-
month basis)
Notice
If CPA does not apply to lease, but lease does not specify its duration (periodic lease), agreement may be terminated at any
time on reasonable notice by any of parties (common law position)
- Notice must be subject to what is in agreement itself and the legislation applicable
- Usually, notice period is stipulated in contract, otherwise, it must be reasonable notice
- Reasonableness depends on the circumstances
- Court may allow a reasonable time for lessee to find an alternative place (with regard to residential lease agreements;
extra important with vulnerable lessees) and may also allow a reasonable time for lessor to find another tenant
Death
Death does not always terminate a lease agreement
If one party dies, lease is not terminated unless:
- There is a particular agreement that lease will end upon death of one of parties
- It is agreed that lease continues as long as lessor/lessee wants it to continue – and then lessor/lessee dies
Insolvency
Insolvency: debts / liabilities / expenses outweighs income / assets
General rule: insolvency is not an automatic termination of lease
If it is insolvency of lessor:
- Lease is not terminated
- Immoveable property may be sold subject to lease and HGVK principle – unless price is not enough to cover claims of
mortgage creditors
If it is the insolvency of lessee:
- The lease is not automatically terminated
- Trustee can choose to terminate lease by notice – 3-month rule applies
o If trustee does not make a choice within 3 months, it is presumed that lease is terminated upon expiry of 3 months
o If trustee chooses to cancel the lease, lessor can claim damages from insolvent estate
A stipulation / term in lease agreement that says that agreement is terminated upon insolvency of either party is null and void
Renewal of the lease
There are 2 ways to renew a lease:
- by way of agreement
- by operation of law
Option to renew
Option to renew is a clause in agreement that gives lessee option / right to renew lease after current lease expires
Not the actual renewal – just option to have choice to renew lease or not (can be included in lease agreement, but not
necessarily acted upon/enforced)
Option can be exercised by lessee – does not force lessee to renew
o If lessee chooses to exercise option to renew, lessor must accept it and act accordingly
o If the lessee chooses not to exercise option to renew, lessee must convey decision to lessor (lessor must accept)
Can be made conditional (e.g., “this option can only be exercised whilst the property is not up for sale”)
Can stipulate time period in which to exercise option – if not mentioned, option must be exercised before expiry of lease
Option to renew must contain essentialia of a lease
- If an essentialia is missing (e.g., no rental amount is specified or can be inferred from agreement), no valid lease will
result from exercising option to renew
Unit 3: Agency
Theme 1: Introduction
Basic concepts
Agency: where one person (agent) is authorized to perform a juristic act on behalf of another person (principal)
There is always at least 3 parties involved (tripartite relationship):
- Principal: person who authorises someone else to act on their behalf and who will then acquire all rights and duties under
act performed on their behalf
- Agent: person who has authority to represent another person
- 3rd party – can be a natural or juristic person
There are 2 agreements that come into play with agency:
- Agreement between principal and agent
- Agreement between principal and 3rd party (does not bind agent)
Permission or authority can be obtained and vested in agent in different ways:
- Via contract
- By operation of law
- Ratification
- Ostensible authority
If agent did have valid authority, rights and duties are created between 3 rd party and principal
- Agent is not a party to the contract – he is middleman / conduit
Theme 2: Authority
Sources of authority
Contractual authority (express or tacit)
Derives from an agreement between agent and principal (can be an express or tacit agreement)
2 main forms of contract whereby agent can derive authority:
- Contract of mandate: agreement where principal gives particular authority to an agent. Mandator instructs mandatee to do
something on their behalf (most typical)
o All normal requirements for valid contract must be met and there must be a valid offer and acceptance
o Agent can accept or reject this offer. If accepted, it is indication of consensus between principal and agent –
authority comes into existence
- Employment contract
o Agent is employee of principal (employer)
o Is employee an agent of employer or just a normal employee? Depends on terms of contract
o Ongevallekommissaris case – general rule is if agent is not subject to control of employer but can act independently
and in his own discretion, then person is an agent not an employee
Express contractual authority doesn’t need to be in writing – can also be granted orally, however, verbal agreements cause
problems in practice
Ratification
When act was committed by agent, there wasn’t authority / agent acted outside scope of authority, but that authority was later
given, and legal act was ratified as if it existed when agent acted
Can be express or tacit
Deemed that act of agency has been done validly and with retrospective effect (juristic act will bind principal retrospectively)
Ratification will not affect vested rights that came into existence in between juristic act done without authority and ratification
of that act with retrospective effect
- E.g., if an innocent person did not know that agent acted without authority and acquired rights in property that was subject
of ratified judicial act, their rights in that vested in property is not nullified
Requirements:
- Principal must have existed when agent acted
- Principal must have intention to ratify unauthorised act
- Principal must unilaterally declare ratification (expressly or tacitly)
- Principal must ratify act within a fixed or reasonable time period after act was performed
- Agent must have intended to perform act on behalf of a specific or ascertainable principal, not for himself
- Act of agency must have been valid
If these requirements are met, unauthorised act will become authorised and principal will be retrospectively bound by
consequences of juristic act from date agent performed act
Ostensible authority
Where an impression was created, but it was not corrected – principal cannot rely on absence of authority
Principal creates impression that agent has true authority, which results in 3 rd party believing that agent has authority when
they don’t
If principal was aware that an impression was created but didn’t correct it, they cannot later try get out agreement or claim that
agent didn’t have authority – will be bound towards 3 rd party in terms of act of agent
Position before Makate case:
- Approach was that ostensible authority is based on doctrine of estoppel
- In order for ostensible authority to be enforced (to be source of authority) requirements for estoppel must be met:
o Principal must have created an impression / representation (either intentionally or negligently)
o Impression must have been of such a nature that one can reasonably expect it to have misled 3 rd party
o 3rd party must have acted on strength of impression
o 3rd party must have experienced prejudice as a result of acting on representation
Makate v Vodacom
- Approach to ostensible authority changed
- Court held that ostensible authority is not based on estoppel, as it only requires element of an impression (not all
requirements of estoppel)
- Ostensible authority is a form of actual authority (it is not just a defence) – concept of ostensible authority was broadened
E.g. of ostensible authority: Pharma rep worked for a pharma company, but later leaves company. Pharma company becomes
aware that rep still goes to same doctors to sell same products, but they do not correct impression that doctors have (that rep
still works for them). Pharma company will still be liable towards doctors because company prevented them from relying on
truth. If rep fails to deliver products, company cannot escape rights and duties that was created between them and doctors due
to this impression.
Scope of authority
Scope of authority depends on source of authority (contract, ratification, enactment)
Important to determine scope of authority because if agent acted outside of scope, they might be held personally liable
Authority can either be given for only one act or it can be a general authority
Agents may only perform acts that are legal or physically possible
Scope of authority can also be extended by tacit or implied or ostensible authority
Express authority
Makes the scope of authority clear
Scope of authority is based on either written or verbal communication between principal and agent
Terms of express authority do not have to include each and every particular of what the agent may and may not do on
principal’s behalf – principal can grant agent discretion and freedom of action under certain circumstances
- If there are issues, court will scrutinize source of authority to see if it was reasonable to give such broad authority
Tacit authority
Authority is unspoken / between the lines, but must always be based on consensus (both parties had intention to be bound to
this authority)
Objective bystander test is employed to determine existence or scope of tacit authority
- An objective bystander (with no vested interest) must be asked whether relevant term is included in authority (would he
be aware that agent had authority to act on behalf of principal?)
- If answer is yes, one can accept that tacit authority exists
Kinds of tacit authority:
- General / related authority: if agent is appointed to a position or given general authority, they have tacit authority to do
anything normally associated with that particular position to fulfil that general authority
- Special / customary authority: if agent is given a specific task, they can do whatever is necessary to fulfil specific task
and / or allowed by usages of that trade
- Normal authority of professional persons: if a person is appointed and given authority to conduct work in professional
capacity (such as an attorney), client tacitly authorises that professional person (agent) can do anything that someone in
that profession usually does (unless parties agree otherwise) – see Nel case
Nel v SA Railways and Harbours:
- Court held: there is no difference between express and tacit/implied agency as far as scope and limitation of agency are
concerned
- Extent of authority depends directly on contents of instructions and nature of act + is usually limited by purpose for which
agent is appointed
- When an agent’s authority exceeds scope of authority, they cannot say that they acted for benefit of principal as a defence
- Agent may only perform juristic acts which share a natural and causal link with the particular act of agency
- Test of whether an agent acted within limits of his agency depends on what is usual practice under such circumstances
(not what is reasonable)
Ostensible authority
Distinguish between:
- Where authority was granted ostensibly (impression of authority that principal created towards 3 rd party)
- Where there was actual authority, but scope of authority was made wider due to false impression created
Determine scope by looking at impression that was created (how far does impression go?)
Formalities
General rule = agency agreement / mandate does not have to be in writing (no formal requirements)
Exceptions to this rule: in certain situations there are formalities because agent is creating rights and duties that have got
serious consequences relating to property or legal status
When agency agreement is required to be in writing, a power of attorney is needed
- Power of attorney must be in writing and signed (by principal)
- It must clearly state what agent’s specific or general authority involves
Examples of when power of attorney is needed
- If principal authorizes agent to purchase land on his behalf, s 2(1) ALA requires that that authority must be signed and in
writing
- Where conveyancer transfers land or registers mortgage bond on behalf of someone, must be in writing and signed
- Where legal practitioner lodges or opposes an appeal in HC on behalf of a client, needs power of attorney
Tripartite relationship
Relationship between principal and 3rd party
Terms of contract concluded between agent and 3rd party must be considered when determining legal relationship between
principal and 3rd party
There is only a legal binding relationship between 3 rd party and agent in exceptional circumstances
If agent acts within scope of authority, rights and duties will be vested in 3 rd party and principal (principal will be bound)
Principal will be liable towards 3rd party for wrongs committed by agent:
- If agent commits a delict against 3rd party and agent acted within scope of authority, principal will be liable if:
o Agent is in employment of principle
o Agent committed delict while executing his duties of employee (vicarious liability)
o Principal authorised and had knowledge of agent’s act that caused damage, they will be held liable (even if agent is
not an employee)
- Where agent makes fraudulent misrepresentations that causes 3 rd party to suffer damage, principal is liable if agent acted
inside scope of authority (principal not liable if agent made fraudulent misrepresentations outside scope of authority)
Undisclosed principal
Where agent concludes a contract in his own name, but is acting as an agent for another person (undisclosed principal)
Agent does not inform 3rd party that he is acting on behalf of a principal
Special contractual relationship forms between agent and 3 rd party (and a contractual relationship forms between principal and
3rd party)
If 3rd party discovers that agent acted on behalf of somebody else, they can choose which relationship to rely on
- They can claim either from agent or from principal
Cullinan v Noordkaaplandse Aartappelkernmoerkwekers:
- Despite objections, Court accepted doctrine of undisclosed principal and gave reasons
- Objections against this doctrine – it is against principles of contract law because only an actual party to a contract can be
bound to it and acquire rights and duties in terms of it
- Court accepted this doctrine for following reasons:
o Doctrine had been applied in commercial dealings in SA for over 100 years
o Numerous transactions had already been concluded in terms of which parties have acquired rights and duties which
would be retrospectively lost if court rejected the doctrine
o Doctrine had already been incorporated into legislation (s 16 of the Transfer Duty Act)
- Overview of this doctrine:
o This doctrine should be limited to one undisclosed principal
o As soon as 3rd party finds out that agent acted on behalf of an undisclosed principal, he has a choice between holding
either principal or agent liable. Once this choice is made, 3 rd party is bound to it
Remuneration
Many times, there is more than one estate agent trying to sell a property – remuneration is a headache in practice
Right to payment of commission is usually made conditional on finding a willing and able buyer
Sale agreements for property must be very clear on exactly how and when estate agent should receive commission
Gordon v Slotar:
- Court confirmed that one must ask which agent’s actions qualified as effective cause of sale – will depend on facts of case
- If it is impossible to determine which of agents was effective cause, principal might have to pay both of them and will
only have himself to blame for not properly regulating this relationship with separate agents
Aida Real Estate v Lipschitz:
- Potential buyer had considered buying property via agent but then backed out due to financial constraints. Later, they
approached principal directly with financial means to buy property and concluded a sale agreement directly with principal
- Court found that one must ask whether introduction by agent of a potential buyer was effective cause of sale, or whether
an overriding event (between introduction and sale) effectively cancelled out impact of the initial introduction
- Current position: if an agent introduced a buyer to property, buyer must be willing and able to actually purchase property
Brokers
Any person who, in terms of a contract, assists another person with conclusion of a contract or concludes a contract on that
person’s behalf with a 3rd person
Broker can function as an agent but also as a middleman or intermediary who merely brings 2 contracting parties together
Particulars of his role will depend on his agreement with person who appointed him as broker
E.g., property brokers (estate agents), financial brokers (investment broker and stock insurance)
Auctioneers
Agent who is appointed in terms of a contract of mandate to sell principal’s property at a public auction
Movable goods: principal usually delivers them to auctioneer, who arranges auction, sells property, delivers it to buyer, and
receives payment on principal’s behalf
Immovable property: purchase price is usually not paid to auctioneer but directly to seller (principal)
An auctioneer may not personally or through an intermediary bid on or buy anything at auction
Contract of mandate between auctioneer and principal should set out particulars of how auctioneer should be remunerated
- If there is no express agreement, assumed that they tacitly agreed to compensation usually payable to auctioneers
Auctions and actions of auctioneers are subject to certain statutory rules (such as CPA)
Company representatives
A registered company is a juristic person which does not have physical capability to act in person, and therefore a natural
person must act on its behalf
Companies Act provides that a board of directors has authority to exercise all powers and functions of company – unless Act
itself or company’s memorandum of incorporation stipulates otherwise
Board can delegate authority (express, tacit, ostensible) to another person (such as a specific director or an employee) to
perform certain acts on company’s behalf
Unit 4: Suretyship
Theme 1: Introduction
Credit security
Debt relationship where 1 party (debtor) has an obligation towards other party (creditor) and obligation can be due to more
than 1 scenario, such as:
- Law of obligations
- Contract or agreement where 1 party loans money to another party
- Delict (1 party owes a monetary amount caused by a patrimonial loss to another party)
- Legislation can establish obligations between parties (e.g., unjustified enrichment)
There is always possibility that debtor might not pay – this is a risk
Security is best way to alleviate risk from creditor’s perspective if debtor does not pay
Security is called a ‘2nd option’ or ‘backup plan’ if debtor does not pay
When creditor has security, they are secured creditor (if not, they are unsecured creditor)
Benefits of surety:
- Excussion
- Division
- Rescission
- Lien
- Damages
Forms of security
Form 1: Personal security / suretyship
- Where another person binds himself to fulfil debtor’s performance should debtor fail to pay
- Creditor obtains a personal right against surety (creditor can claim from surety if debtor doesn’t pay)
Form 2: Real security
- Where creditor is given a security right in an asset / property should debtor fail to pay
- Creditor obtains a real right in object
- Purpose: can attach property and sell it via court processes if debtor does not pay
- Secure creditor (creditor that has real security by way of property) has a preference to proceeds of property against other
unsecured creditors that stand in queue to get their money back
- Pledge: If a movable thing is given as security
- Mortgage: If immovable property is given as security
Difference between these 2 forms is subjective right that is vested (personal right vs real right)
Accessory nature of security:
- Personal and real security depends on existence of a valid principal debt or obligation
- Security right secures fulfilment of underlying obligation (if there is no underlying obligation, then there can be no
security)
- Security is an accessory to the principal debt
Theme 2: Suretyship
Definition of suretyship
Suretyship: contract in terms of which a 3rd party (surety) binds himself to creditor for proper performance of whole or partial
debt of another (principal debtor)
There is always 3 parties (a principal debtor, creditor, surety) and a principal debt
Suretyship agreement is between creditor and surety
Suretyship is an ancillary agreement because it is dependent on an original principal debt (surety is accessory to principal debt)
Consequences of suretyship
Defences surety can raise to no longer be responsible for payment of debtor’s debt
- Surety can say that suretyship contract is invalid for not complying with formalities
- Surety can say that suretyship contracted is terminated by effluxion of time or prescription
Defences available to surety and principal debtor with regard to obligation
- If it is a defence that relates to actual principal debt (defence in rem), there can be defences for both surety and principal
debtor
o If principal debt is void because contract is illegal, creditor cannot claim from surety because they have same
defences available to them as principal debtor, since defence clings to debt/obligation itself
- If it is a defence of a personal nature that relates to person/principal debtor himself (defence in personam), there might
not necessarily be a defence that can be used by both surety and principal debtor
o If principal debtor is a minor or insolvent (contract is voidable), creditor can still claim from surety if they are not a
minor or insolvent
Special benefits and rights for surety
- Benefit of excussion
o Creditor must first claim payment from principal debtor before he claims payment from surety – unless surety
signed as a co-principal debtor
o Surety can insist that creditor get payment from debtor himself
- Benefit of division (splitting the debt)
o If there is more than 1 surety, sureties can demand that debt is divided between them (they are liable in solidum).
Surety is only liable for his portion/share of debt
o If person signed as both a surety and as a co-principal debtor, this benefit is not available to him
- Benefit of cession of actions
o Surety who performed to creditor can demand cession of all rights and securities of creditor against principal-debtor
and co-sureties
o If surety obtains cession, then he will become principal debtor’s new creditor
- Right of recourse against co-sureties
o If there is more than 1 surety, surety who paid full debt has a right of recourse against other sureties for payment
(whether or not he is aware of them)
- Recourse against the principal debtor
o If surety pays debt, they have a right of recourse from principal debtor to claim amount of his performance
o If suretyship contract is against debtor’s will, this right of recourse will not be available (in this case, surety will
need to take cession of actions from creditor before recovering his expenses from debtor)
Termination of suretyship
Suretyship is terminated if principal debt is terminated (accessory nature of suretyship)
- Principal debt can be terminated if principal debtor makes payment/performance
Suretyship can be terminated in normal ways in which any contract can be terminated
- E.g., prescription, effluxion of time, termination by way of agreement, cancellation due to breach, performance etc.
If there is a material alteration of principal debt/obligation that is to detriment and prejudice of surety and done without their
consent, they do not have to be bound as a surety to that altered principal obligation any longer
- E.g., creditor allows debtor to pay back loan over a longer period of time which is to surety’s disadvantage as he would
be bound for a longer period of time – suretyship is terminated
Selected subcontractor
Where original contractor appoints/chooses a subcontractor in their own discretion
There is no relationship between the client and subcontractor
Contractor has a duty to perform towards client (even if there is a subcontractor involved)
Client has no duty to pay subcontractor
E.g., a client gets a contractor to build a swimming pool. Contractor does not have someone who specialises in pool tiling, thus
they appoint a subcontractor who specialises in tiling of pools. There is no duty on client to pay pool tiler (subcontractor)
Nominated subcontractor
Where client nominates subcontractor (as opposed to the original contractor)
E.g., Client has a brother-in-law who needs a job, so client asks contractor to use her brother-in-law as pool tiler
Client has to pay contractor and contractor won’t be liable for quality of work of subcontractor unless contract indicates
otherwise
Naturalia
Implied terms – if parties don’t change these terms by way of agreement (incidentalia), they always form part of agreement
and apply ex lege
Performance must be made in a reasonable time (if no time is agreed upon)
Client must cooperate and enable contractor to complete his task
Client must provide access to site within a reasonable time for work to be completed
Contractor must begin his work within a reasonable time after gaining access
Work must be done with necessary skill, care and diligence; end result must be suitable for purpose for which it was made;
work must be of standard of quality reasonably expected for that type of work; quality material; fit for its purpose; etc.
Contractor must comply with all statutory provisions that are applicable to his work
Risk of loss/damage falls onto contractor (vis major) – unless parties agree otherwise
Duties of client
Initial duties
- Client must provide contractor with: access to site/premises; plans and specifications; necessary tools and equipment for
completion of work
There must be approval of completed work
- Certificate of approval will be issued in certain cases (can be written or verbal)
o Interim certificate
o Penultimate certificate
o Final certificate
- Legal consequences of a certificate were laid out in Smith v Mouton
- Contractor is only entitled to payment once client approves the work
Payment
- Client must pay remuneration due to contractor
- Payment usually occurs according to certain timeliness
- Remuneration must be fair and reasonable