applicants and therefore the commissioner was expected to have satisfied

Applicants and therefore the commissioner was

This preview shows page 3 - 4 out of 4 pages.

applicants, and therefore the commissioner was expected to have satisfied himself that the dispute had been resolved in respect of all the individual applicants in the claim. In this case the principals were also the co-applicants therefore it was of cardinal importance that the commissioner should have satisfied himself that the dispute was resolved in respect of all the applicants. 3 [1929] AD 382 at 385. 4 [2000] 21 ILJ 2280 (LC) .
Image of page 3
See also the case of Southern Life Association Limited v Beyleveld N.O 5 In this case the fleet manager was designated to represent applicant's predecessor at the CCMA proceedings. The question that was asked is whether a reasonable man in the position of the Respondent would have not believed that the fleet manager had the authority to sign and enter into the Agreement. In Hely-Hutchinson 6 the Court said the following: ‘Ostensible or apparent authority is the authority of an agent as it appears to others...’ In the case of George v Fairmead (Pty) Ltd 7 , in answering the question whether the type of a mistake pleaded by the Respondent is the mistake that can entitle a party to repudiate the contractual liability, it said that the proper approach to the question is to take into account the fact that there is another party involved and to consider his position. ‘Has the first party - the one who is trying to resile - been to blame in the sense that by his conduct he has led the other party, as a reasonable man to believe he was binding himself, If the question is so posed in the present case it is clear that respondent cannot resile from the settlement. An exception noted in the authorities (upon which the court a quo seems to have focused its attention), namely, that a party in the position of the respondent will not be bound if “his mistake is due to a misrepresentation, whether innocent or fraudulent, by the other party’. 5 [1989] 1 All SA 390 (A ) ; [1989] (1) SA 496 (A) at 10 6 See footnote 6 supra 7 [1958] 2 SA 465 (A)
Image of page 4

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 4 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