CONTRACT LAW

Offer And Acceptance - Green Acres Farm v Haddon Motors

Defedents sent truck to plaintiff for cheecking, plaintiff repaired truck and defendent denied invoice - there was no offer/acceptance - court ruled in fvour of defendent - it was not a valid contract.

Certainty - requirement for valid contract - Leveinstein v Levenstein

Court held that offer must be clear, definite and not vague… An offer that is vague or ambiguous cannot form the basis of a binding agreement

Agreement - Pieters and Co v Salomon (1911) AD 121 137

Court held tht if a person’s conduct leads another to reaasonably believe they are assenting to terms, they are bound by the contract

Animus Contrahendi - Blafour v Balfour

Defendent transferred for work to another country - his wife (plaintiff) remained in the UK - husband promised to send her an allowance ocassionally - defendent flouted - wife sued - court held that there was no intention to be legally bound…

Invitation to Treat - Carlill v Carbollic Smoke Ball Co.

Court held that Company was to pay Mrs Carlill on the grounds that her use of their ball in an attempt to cure her infection was a manifest of an acceptance of the company’s offer

Acceptance - No Counter Offer -Meyer v Murry

Murry offered to purchase Meyer’s farm for 1700 pounds - Meyer agreed on condition that he paid 1000pounds up front and covered all expenses - Murry said he could not pay the amout -court ruled iin favour of Meyer and said Murry had no case because he had made a counter- offer

Quasi- Mutual Assent / Estoppel - Spesbona Bank v Portals Water

Court confines themselves to the four corners of the contract - look at the particular conduct of the parties as they/at the time they entered into a contract - Freedom of Contracting -

Possibility to Perform - Validity of a Contract - Peters, Flamman and Co

Court held that contrcat is void if at the time of inspction its performance was impossible. Qualifications for this Priinciple:

• impossibility must be absolute and not probable

• impossibility must be absolute as opposed to relative

• impossibility must not be fault of one of the parties to the contract

Formalities - Validity of a Contract - Guardforce Investments v Ndlovu

The whole sale was deemed to be valid because the entire property was sold, with a future promise regarding the homestead not violating subdivision laws

Contractual Capacity - Edelstein v Edelstein

Court held that “ In RDL, the judgement of a minor is cosidered immature turn-out his minority and he is consequently not bound by his contract”

Contractual Capacity - Jena v Nyemba

Promulgation of the Legal Age o Majority Act, now incorporated into the General Law Amendment Act, conferreed majority status on women that are married customarily

Contractual Capacity - P v Warne

Court must determine whether or not at the tiime of contracting a person could or could not understand and appreciate the transaction into which they were purported to enter

Lucidum Intervallum - Murape v Chatambudza

burden was on the plaintiffs to prove whether or not it was a lucidum intervallum - Court held that the contract was valid because they carried out actions which reflected sanity - withdrawal of cash, engagement with agents -

Statutory Legality - Validity of a contract - Dadoo v Krugersdorp Municipality

Court adopted 3 pronged approach :

• grammatical interpretation

• does the contract fall into the ambit of the statute?

• was the contract designed craftily to circumvent statute?

Common law IIllegality - Valiidity of a contract - Kufandirori v Chipuriro

Pactum Comissorium

Court emphasized that the creditor cannot take ownership of debitor’s property without a court order

Common law IIllegality - Valiidity of a contract - Mangwana v Muparadzi

Court held that the contract was enforceable but modified the terms to be more reasonable, reducing the period of restriction to 3 years and the geographical scope to be Chinhoyi and Harare only - Sanctity of Contract - Reasonable Man’s Test

Fraudulent misrepresentation - Feinstein Niggli

Court held that frauudulent misrepresentation in the form of an opinion/ forecast of future success of a business may mount to or rather iis actionable

Mistake - Logan v Beit

Court held that a mistake made by one party to a contrcat which is due to his own carelessness cannot be reliied upon as a basis for setting aside a contract

Duress- White Brothers v Treasurer General

law treat payment obtained through ‘menaces to a person’ as involuntary payment. as a result, such a transactio is subject to restitution , allowing the innocent party to claim their mone back due to consent not having been free

Undue Influence - Armstrong v Magid

Case established that a contract can be set aside if one party abused a position of trust or influence to persuade another party to enter into an agreement that they otherwise would not have made

Patrimonial Loss - Damages - Administratoor, Natal v Edouard

Party to a contract cannot claim actio injuriarum in the law of contract - patrimonial loss refers to loss in relation to performance, consequential loss, lost profits, wasted expenses

Damages - Victoria Falls and TV1 Power limited v Consoolidated Langlaagte Mines Limited

court held that “ the sufferer by such breach should be placed in the position he would have been had the contract been perrformed, so far as that can be done by the payment of money, without undue hardship to the defaulting party.”

Contemplation Principle - BAT Rhodesia Ltd v Fawcett Security Organisation (Salisbury) (Pvt) (Ltd)

Beck J held that : the general type oof loss should have bbeen foreseaable to both parties, making the breachng party liable for that kind of loss, even if the exact situation was not antiicipated

Phillips Electrical (Pvt) Ltd v Gwanzura

For interim interdict to be established; innocent party must establish:

a) a prima facie right

b) well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm if interim relief is not granted and the ultimate relief is granted

c)that the balance of convenience favours the granting of an interim interdict; and

d) that the applicant has no other satisfactory remedy

Heilbron v Blignaut

court held that an injury which could give rise to a claim in law is apprehended then i think it is clear law that the person against whom the injury is about to be committed is not compelled to wait for the damage and sue afterwards for compensation, but can move court to prevent any damage being done to him.

Ncube v Mpofu and Others

Grounds on which courts exercise discretion in refusing to order specific performance although performance was not impossible may be mentioned:

a) where damages would adequately compensate plaintiff;

b) where it would be difficult for court to enforce its decree;

c) where the thing claimed can be readily bought elsewhere;

d) where specific performance entails rendering of services of a personal nature;

e) where it would operate ureasonably on the defendant/ where the agreement giving rise to schemes is not reasonable/ where decree would produce hardship in circumstances/ would be unequitable in all circumstances

Winterton Holmes and Hills v Paterson

accepted that court would not order reinstatement of specific performance where there has been a bitter relationship between employer and employee

Savanhu v Marere NO and others

appelantg must first show they have performed all their obligations under contract, or show readiness, ability and willingness to perform, right to claim specific performance

Farmers Co-operative Society (Reg) v Berry

prima facie, every party to a binding agreement who is ready to carry out his own obligation under it has a right to demand from the other party, so far as it is possible, a performance of his undertaking, in terms of the contract

Brennan’s Diesel Svcs (Pvt) (Ltd) v Tenda Bus Svcs (Pvt) (Ltd)

establishes that an order for the payment of a sum of money in terms of a contract is in fact an order for enforcement of the conntract

Intercontinental (Pvt) Ltd v Nestle Zimbabwe

Nestle failed to deliver certain quantities of milk - Intercontinental went to court for an application for specific performance

Beitbridge - Bulawayo Railway (Pvt) Ltd v Commercial Union Insurance company of Zimabwe Ltd

the principle of reciprocity is part of Zimbabwean law and it recogises the fact that in many contracts the common intention of the parties, expressed or unexpressed, is that there should be an exchange of performances; and the exception gives effect to the recognition of this fact by serving as a defence for the defendent who is sued on the contract by a plaintiff who has not yet performed or tenndered to perform

Transport and Crane Hire (Pvt) (Ltd) v Hubert Davies and Co

Breach of an essential term of a contract is sos serious tha it leads to cancellation of a contract

Marisa v Madondo

Failure to perform when time was of the essence in the contract amounts to a tacit forfeiture clause entitling the innocent party to cancel the contract

Econet Wireless (Pvt) Ltd v Trustco Mobile (Proprietary) Limited and Another

cancellation of a contract cannot stipulate termination of an agreement as from a future date but must be exercised ex nunc

Ganief v Hoosen

cancellationmust eembody an unqualified, immediate and final deecision to treat the ageement as at an end. It cannot stipulate for a termination at some future time…

Dobrock Holdings (Pvt) Ltd v Turner and Sons (Pvt) Ltd

The general urle is when a contract does not fix a time for performance, there can be no mora ex re, only mora ex persona, so a demand by creditor is necessary to place debtor in mora

Laws v Rutherfurd

principle which applies when a debtor undertakes to discharge an oligation on a specified date; the creditor need not make a demand: dies interpellat pro homine , and the debtor is in mora if he fails to pay on the appointed day

Mashoko v Mobil Oil Zimbabwe (Pvt) Ltd an vice versa…

established that doctorine of vicarious liability