Course Hero Logo

KTH 220 Practice Long Questions Model Answers.pdf - KTH 220...

Course Hero uses AI to attempt to automatically extract content from documents to surface to you and others so you can study better, e.g., in search results, to enrich docs, and more. This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 4 pages.

KTH 220 Practice Questions SU 1 (SALE), ST 1 & 2MODEL ANSWERSQuestion 1 [6]NOTE: This is clearly the (almost) exact set of facts of the McWilliams-decision. Readthe question carefully and remember to answer the whole question. This question isabout the essentialia/ requirements for a valid sale.]The essentialia on which the parties must have consensus on for theconclusion of a valid sale are:oThe intention to buy and sell (1);oPurchase price (1)oThing sold (1)This was confirmed in theMcWilliams decision (1)o* You could also have cited the Vasco decision for a mark.In McWilliamsit was held that not replying to the email (“merequiescence”) did not necessarily amount to acceptance of thecontents of the letter (1), especially where commercial practice andhuman expectation would indeed call for a response (1).I would advise Mona that, in terms of theMcWilliams-case, if she didnot agree with the email did constitute a valid sale (1) because it didcontain all the essentialia (1) and she should have responded to theemail if she did not agree to the contents (1).Maximum total for the question - [6]Question 2Indicate whether or not the following agreements are valid agreements ofsale and provide reasons for your answer and include relevant case lawwhere appropriate:1.A sold his textbook to B for R500. The contract contains a clausethat ownership will never transfer. [3]Commented [Prof B1]:NB! You don’t have to rememberthe full case name but the examiner must be able to seeclearly which decision you are referring to. Spelling istherefore also important.Commented [Prof B2]:NB! Look at the question. If youneed to advise a client in the question, you also need to giveyour answer in that way.No valid sale (1) Parties must have the intention to buy and sell (1)Vasco-case (1)No intention to transfer ownership. (par 13.07 &13.10)2.A sold his Petrol Station to B which included a site license to sellpetroleum products. [3]Yes valid sale (1) In terms ofCWA Snyders NO v Louistef(1) the sitelicense to sell petroleum products is a valid merx or thing sold. (1)3.A sold his car to B. The purchase price is described as: “payablein equal monthly instalments without interest”.[3]No valid sale (1) In terms ofPatel v Adam(1); this is not a validdescription of the purchase price (1) it is neither determined ordeterminable at time of conclusion of the sale (1)4.A sold his car to B. The parties agreed that Mr. X a qualified auditorwill determine the purchase price. [2]Yes valid sale (1) a third party that the parties agreed to may makeCommented [Prof B3]:

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

End of preview. Want to read all 4 pages?

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Term
Fall
Professor
S van wyk
Tags
Mr King, Mr Kong

Newly uploaded documents

Show More

Newly uploaded documents

Show More

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture