Absolving Agreement

Contract law in South Africa is “essentially a modernized version of Roman-Dutch contract law”[1], itself rooted in canonical and Roman laws. In the broadest definition, a contract is an agreement reached by two or more parties with the serious intention of creating a legal obligation. Contract law provides a legal framework within which individuals can carry out commercial transactions and means of exchange and ensure that the law respects and, if necessary, implements their agreements. Contract law strengthens and governs private sector enterprises in South Africa in the interest of fair trade. If there is a discrepancy between the actual intention and the explicit or perceived intent of the parties, the question of whether or not a legal system maintains a contract depends on its approach to the contract: is it subjective (oriented towards true consensus) or is it obvious or objective (oriented towards the external aspect of an agreement)? [19] Many commercial transactions involve both debt and property rights and therefore have elements of ownership, obligation or contract. For example, a sales contract requires the seller to deliver the thing sold to the buyer. As such, this is the underlying cause or reason for the subsequent transfer of ownership. However, it does not result in the transfer carried out by the effective agreement (the converging intentions of the parties to proceed and receive the transfer of ownership). If the underlying contract is not valid, the ownership nevertheless goes away because South African law is more consistent with the abstract system than causal of transmission. However, the assignor usually has the possibility of a restitution action to repair the property. At the end of the 19th century, under the general influence of English law “and the particular domineering influence of Lord Henry de Villiers CJ “, the courts interpreted iusta causa as a valuable and necessary consideration for a valid contract. [14] It faced strong opposition from northern jurists such as John Gilbert KotzĂ© and was later rejected by the Transvaal Supreme Court at Rood v Wallach (1904), which applied a general principle of attachment force. [15] De Villiers, however, refused to admit the point, so that the dispute continued until 1919, almost 50 years after its beginning, it was resolved by the Appeal Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa in the famous Conradie/Rossouw case,[16] in which the court found that the contract was binding by a serious and intentional agreement, with the intention of creating a legal obligation.

and at the same time abolished the iusta causa and consideration for doctrines. [11] It now seems clear that a case, whether painful (ex titulo oneroso) or not (ex causa lucrativa), is not a separate requirement from contract law in South Africa. [17] “The fact that a contract, in order to be valid, must have been seriously intended by the parties [as well as other obvious elements as lawful and achievable] is obvious …

No categories