Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
VLP Property CC v Martjohn Trading CC (43745/2020) [2022] ZAGPJHC 242 (26 April 2022)
The High Court granted eviction after finding no new lease was concluded and that the respondent’s amendments were a rejected counter-offer.
Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v Letsoalo (J18/2014) [2016] ZALAC 43 (27 July 2016)
The Labour Appeal Court held that the employee unequivocally rejected a reasonable alternative post, so the dismissal for operational requirements was procedurally fair.
Cooper v Clark (2015/31475) [2016] ZAGPJHC 79 (29 April 2016)
The court held that the seller’s amendments to an offer to purchase were a counter-offer, so no binding sale agreement arose and the deposit had to be refunded.
African Information Technology Bridge 1 v The MEC for Infrastructure Development Gauteng Province (134/2014) [2015] ZASCA 104 (2 July 2015)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the department’s contracts were void because it was under a justus error about the identity of the tendering party.
Lot 695 Hibberdene (Pty) Limited v Coalition Trading 689 CC (414/2013) [2015] ZAKZDHC 37 (30 April 2015)
The court found that the respondent's occupation of shop 8 was not based on a valid written lease, as the document with handwritten amendments constituted a counter-offer that was never accepted by the applicant. There was no agreement on rental, and thus no lease existed. The respondent's occupation could only have been under an oral monthly tenancy, but even then, no rental was agreed, so no lease existed. If a monthly tenancy existed, it was properly terminated by service of ejectment proceedings. The respondent was not entitled to remain in occupation by virtue of tacit relocation, as the…
Source excerpt
Cowley and Another v Lai Thom and Another (1117/2010) [2012] ZAECPEHC 70 (25 September 2012)
The court held that no binding sale agreement was concluded because the offer expired before acceptance and the later acceptance was not compliant with section 2 of the Alienation of Land Act.
Botha v Malibra Hire BK (1960/2010) [2012] ZANCHC 25 (25 May 2012)
The High Court held that no binding contract existed after the applicant’s amendments amounted to a counter-offer that the respondent never accepted.
Wonderhoek Farms (Edms) Bpk v Burgess en Anders (556/2011) [2011] ZAFSHC 67 (24 March 2011)
The court found that all conditions for transfer of the property had been met by July 2010, and that the option agreement did not specify a time for exercise. Applying established principles, the court held that a reasonable time for exercise had expired by the time the applicant's attorneys sent their letter on 15 November 2010. The first notification from the third respondent was a counter-offer, not a valid exercise of the option, and was not accepted by the applicant. Even if the second notification was considered, the reasonable period had already expired. Consequently, the option agreem…
Source excerpt
Gaap Point of Sale (Pty) Ltd v Valjee NO and Others [2010] ZAKZDHC 51; 2011 (6) SA 601 (KZD) (1 November 2010)
Court held no lease agreement was concluded after the applicant’s amended draft operated as a counter-offer and was rejected; declaratory relief was dismissed.
Rockbreakers and Parts (Pty) Ltd v Rolag Property Trading (Pty) Ltd (498/08) [2009] ZASCA 102; 2010 (2) SA 400 (SCA) ; [2010] 1 All SA 291 (SCA) (18 September 2009)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the manuscript insertion making the acceptance of the offer subject to the seller obtaining registration of the subdivision was a material term and constituted a counter-offer. As the respondent did not accept or sign this amendment, the contract failed to comply with section 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act 68 of 1981, which requires all material terms to be in writing and signed by both parties. The absence of written acceptance rendered the contract unenforceable. The court rejected the respondent's argument that the suspensive condition was surplusa…
Source excerpt
Explore more
