1.

Bloom v The American Swiss Watch Company 1915

Facts: A robbery occurred at the Cape Town premises of the American Swiss watch company; jewelry with the combined value of $ 5000 was forcibly removed. A company representative subsequently stated, through the press, that he was willing to pay anyone who would deliver information to the CID that could aid in the arrest of the thieves and the returning of the stolen goods. If the information only leads to a portion of the stolen goods, the reward will be paid proportionately. The information reached the police from various sources; the culprits were arrested and a bulk of the property was recovered. It was determined that the information by the plaintiff is what led to the recovery of the thieves and the returning of the stolen goods. However, the plaintiff was unaware of the offer when hed delivered such information to the police. Legal question: Is there a contractual relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant Ruling: A party cannot accept an offer for which he is unaware of.

Consensus is only present when one person becomes aware of the others expression of will and reacts accordingly (party was not aware of the others expression of will, therefore no contract existed)

2. Trollip v Jordaan

Facts: The deed correctly described the property with reference to and in accordance with the sellers title deeds. Purchaser alleged that the sellers agent had incorrectly pointed out to him the boundaries of the farm.

Ruling: Not held void. Non material mistake

3. Dickenson Motors (Pty) Ltd v Oberholzer Facts: The defendants sold a Plymouth car to the plaintiffs son on hire purchase. The son subsequently bought another Plymouth which he exchanged with the plaintiffs Hudson. The plaintiffs son than sold the first Plymouth and his fathers car. When the defendant latter took judgment against he plaintiffs son and executed a warrant for the return of the car, the plaintiffs son claimed the car was in his fathers possession. The defendants took possession of the second Plymouth upon which the father was forced to pay the amount outstanding on the car in order to get it back. Both parties were under the assumption that the car in question was the one the plaintiffs son had originally by the defendant to the plaintiffs son. A month later, the car was taken out of the possession of the plaintiff again per the request of the second motor dealer. Plaintiff then brought action to recover the amount paid to the defendant. Ruling: The plaintiff was allowed to recover. The only reason the plaintiff paid the outstanding amount was so that he could gain possession of the car in question, both parties were under the impression that this was the original Plymouth sold by the defendant. This common mistake was material because, without it, the plaintiff would not have settled his sons debt. He was allowed to recover.

Common mistake

4. National & Overseas Distributors Corporation (Pty) Ltd v Potato Board

Facts: The respondent invited tenders for the erection of a steel shed. The appellant submitted the lowest tender. The power to decide which board to accept vested in the full potato board. The executive committee of the board recommended that the appellants tender be accepted. The full potato board however chose to go in another direction. Meanwhile the manager had already drafted a letter accepting the appellants tender. In spite of the boards decision, though, the letter was mistakenly signed and sent to the appellant. The NOD, appellant, subsequently bought building material and hired a contractor to perform the task stipulated in the tender. The potato board later informed the NOD of the mistake and suggested the letter be disregarded. NOD, however, insisted a contract had been completed. Ruling: Our law does not allow for party to use unjustified unilateral mistake to escape liability. Contract stood. Will theory: Nod would have no remedy as consensus would not have been reached.

5. Van Ryn Wine and spirit Co v Chandos Bar Facts: Frankie, employee of the Wine and Spirit Co solicited order for liquor from a partner at Chandos bar. He promised a special reduction in price if payments were made to him before delivery. The reason for this being that his company needed money. He also said that invoices for the full amount would be sent to her only to conceal the fact that the company had breached a liquor trade ring agreement fixing a standard price. She, Mrs. Hurley, received the liquor after paying Frankie the reduced amount in advance. Some time later, she received invoices with the full amount but did not act on them. The Wine and Spirit Co later sued Chandos bar for the price of liquor sold. A magistrates judgment sided with the defendant. And an appeal was dismissed. Ruling:

6. Peri-Urban Areas Health Board v Breet

7. South African Railways and Harbours v National Bank of South Africa Ltd 8. Hodgson Bros v South African Railways Facts: Hodgson Bros offered, in writing, to sell a truck to the railways for $500. The wrote a reply stating that I am prepared to pass an order on you for the 5 ton lorry this price to include certain spares you hold for the lorry, and I shall be glad to hear from you if you are agreeable to accept these terms. Hodgson Bros accepted. Later they received a telegram informing them that the railways had omitted to state the price they were willing to pay, namely $ 300. Plaintiffs, Hodgson Bros, insisted that there was a contract for $ 500. The court agreed.