Offer, Public Policy & Good Faith

Question 1

Bloom v American Swiss Watch Co (1915) — held?

Accepted Answer

A person who gives information without knowing a reward was offered cannot claim it; there must be consensus. (Source: 1915 AD 100)

Question 2

Sasfin v Beukes (1989) — held?

Accepted Answer

A cession agreement so one-sided that it left the debtor in virtual slavery was contrary to public policy and unenforceable. (Source: 1989 (1) SA 1 (A))

Question 3

Afrox Healthcare v Strydom (2002) — held?

Accepted Answer

A hospital's exemption clause excluding liability for nurses' negligence was enforceable and not contrary to public policy. (Source: 2002 (6) SA 21 (SCA))

Question 4

Everfresh Market Virginia v Shoprite Checkers (2011) — significance?

Accepted Answer

The Constitutional Court suggested good faith and ubuntu could inform contract law, but did not decide the issue as it was raised too late. (Source: 2012 (1) SA 256 (CC))

Question 5

Beadica 231 CC v Trustees, Oregon Trust (2020) — held?

Accepted Answer

Good faith and fairness are not free-standing grounds to refuse to enforce a contract; enforcement is refused only where it would be contrary to public policy. (Source: 2020 (5) SA 247 (CC))

Question 6

Alienation of Land Act 68 of 1981 s 2(1)?

Accepted Answer

A deed of alienation of land must be in writing and signed by the parties (or their agents acting on written authority). (Source: Act 68 of 1981, s 2(1))

Question 7

Which two statutes most affect consumer contracts?

Accepted Answer

The Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 and the National Credit Act 34 of 2005. (Source: Act 68 of 2008; Act 34 of 2005)

1.Bloom v American Swiss Watch Co (1915) — held?

2.Sasfin v Beukes (1989) — held?

3.Afrox Healthcare v Strydom (2002) — held?

4.Everfresh Market Virginia v Shoprite Checkers (2011) — significance?

5.Beadica 231 CC v Trustees, Oregon Trust (2020) — held?

6.Alienation of Land Act 68 of 1981 s 2(1)?

7.Which two statutes most affect consumer contracts?