122 Pure Approach Two other cases held opposite interpretations of this legal

122 pure approach two other cases held opposite

This preview shows page 31 - 34 out of 45 pages.

1.2.2 Pure Approach : Two other cases held opposite interpretations of this legal issue than De Vos. Hare’s Brickfields Ltd v Cape Town City Pty Ltd; and Sonarep (SA) Pty Ltd v Motorcraft Assumptions are based on past and present facts but if you talk about the future = it is an uncertainty Argues that what De Vos is talking about is actually a resolutive condition: a contractual condition where the parties agree that up to the fulfilment or not of the condition, then only will the contract come into being or not. THUS De Vos is confusing the future assumption with a resolutive condition. De Vos says NO he is not because this is not a condition it is a future certainty. The parties are certain about what is going to happen in the future, now it proves false as a result of this common mistake there is no contract. Hutchison states that there is a gap in our law with regards to change, after the contract is concluded. 1.3. Hare’s Brickfields Ltd v Cape Town City Pty Ltd The "conditions" which a Town Council imposes when granting permission for the quarrying of land in a municipal jurisdiction are not unlimited in scope but is regulated by the relevant Municipal Ordinance:
Image of page 31
Sections 232 (2) and Section 232(8) of Municipal Ordinance 19 of 1951 which limits the manner of working a quarry. A council cannot stipulate as a regulatory condition of its consent to quarry, that it be given an option to purchase the property on which the quarrying operations are to be carried out. An Option to Purchase is a contractual term agreed to between parties (i.e. not imposed by law). Should the council exercise the option, the council would not be exercising a statutory power, but a contractual right. Therefore the council does not require prior approval by the Administrator as a precondition for the acquisition of an option and the absence of such approval will not render the option invalid. Held: Williams v Evans 1978 (1) SA 1170 (C): was wrong insofar as it may have accepted that a material common assumption of events in futura can result in the "failure" of a contract "if the assumption fails". The cases cited therein deal with assumptions as to extant/existing facts. Fact Summary case extract : “Plaintiff ("the company") owned erf 27815, Salt River, where it quarried raw material to manufacture bricks. During 1957 defendant ("the Council") decided to expropriate part of this for the purpose of the construction of the Eastern Boulevard. The company bought an adjacent property, D the remaining extent of lot H ("the said property") and, on 28 February 1967, granted the Council an option to buy this for R40 000 within six months of the company's excavations reaching the levels determined by the City Engineer and shown on an accompanying plan. The company is now claiming a declaratory order that this contract of option is invalid or, alternatively, has fallen away and is unenforceable. The question is whether the company has on the facts in law any grounds, on which it can escape its
Image of page 32
obligations under the option to transfer the said property to the council for the sum of R40 000, should the Council decide to exercise the option in its favour.”
Image of page 33
Image of page 34

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 45 pages?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

Stuck? We have tutors online 24/7 who can help you get unstuck.
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes