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
Sivubo Trading and Projects CC v Development Bank of Southern Africa (233/2018) [2019] ZASCA 28 (28 March 2019)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Sivubo’s tender was conditionally accepted, but the suspensive condition was not met, so no binding contract arose.
Famante Infocast (Pty) Ltd v Mafikeng Local Municipality (150/12) [2017] ZANWHC 93 (19 October 2017)
The High Court held that a municipal appointment letter created a binding contract, and the municipality’s failure to sign the service level agreement did not prevent liability.
Command Protection Services (Gauteng) (Pty) Ltd t/a Maxi Security v SA Post Office Ltd (214/12) [2012] ZASCA 160; [2013] 1 All SA 266 (SCA); 2013 (2) SA 133 (SCA) (16 November 2012)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent's letter of acceptance (PC3) did not constitute an unconditional acceptance of the appellant's tender (PC2), but rather a conditional counter-offer subject to BEE improvement and the successful finalisation and signing of a formal contract. The court found that these conditions were material and required further negotiation and agreement, and that no binding contract came into existence on the terms alleged by the appellant. The appellant's provision of services was pursuant to a collateral arrangement pending the outcome of negotiations, n…
Source excerpt
De Vries Smuts v Department of Economic Development and Environmental Affairs (389/2008) [2010] ZAECBHC 8 (30 July 2010)
The High Court held that a tender appointment created a binding contract and that the absence of a signed service level agreement did not defeat liability.
Kubu tsa Tlhabiroe Construction CC JV and Others v Moqhaka Local Municipality (5254/07) [2008] ZAFSHC 29 (15 May 2008)
The court dismissed a claim to enforce a municipal tender for 450 VIP toilet structures, holding the agreement was limited to registered stands only.
Propermark (Edms) Bpk v Galama (08/03) [2004] ZANCHC 52 (5 March 2004)
The court held that the defendant’s common-law tender remained open and could be accepted by the plaintiff before withdrawal, resulting in specific performance.
Explore more
