 | This article relies largely or entirely on a single source .(June 2015) |
Hodgson Brothers v South African Railways and Harbours 1928 CPD 257 was an important case in the South African law of contract, which represented one of the first clear deployments of reliance theory or the doctrine of quasi-mutual assent.
Hodgson Brothers, a small undertaking, informed South African Railways and Harbours that it had a lorry to sell for 500 pounds. Negotiations ensued between the parties, at no stage during which was the price disputed. SA Railways made a complete and definite offer to buy the lorry. Hodgson Brothers received the offer and accepted by post. Five days later, however, SA Railways sent a telegram notifying Hodgson Brothers that it had forgotten in their prior negotiations to mention that it would only pay 300 pounds for the lorry. Hodgson Brothers refused accept this, arguing that they had already agreed on the price. SA Railways contended that it had made a mistake.
Although the court held that there was no subjective meeting of the minds between the two parties,—no animus contrahendi, in other words—it found that South African Railways and Harbours, by its conduct, had created in the mind of Hodgson Brothers a reasonable belief that there is consensus and therefore contract had occurred. The contract accordingly was upheld.
Under the Whyte notation for the classification of steam locomotives, 0-4-0 represents one of the simplest possible types, that with two axles and four coupled wheels, all of which are driven. The wheels on the earliest four-coupled locomotives were connected by a single gear wheel, but from 1825 the wheels were usually connected with coupling rods to form a single driven set.
Offer and acceptance are generally recognised as essential requirements for the formation of a contract, and analysis of their operation is a traditional approach in contract law. This classical approach to contract formation has been modified by developments in the law of estoppel, misleading conduct, misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and power of acceptance.
Hartog v Colin & Shields [1939] 3 All ER 566 is an important English contract law case regarding unilateral mistake. It holds that when it is obvious that someone has made a mistake in the terms of an offer, one may not simply "snap up" the offer and be able to enforce the agreement.
Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd[1970] EWCA Civ 2 is a leading English contract law case. It provides a good example of the rule that a clause cannot be incorporated after a contract has been concluded, without reasonable notice before. Also, it was held that an automatic ticket machine was an offer, rather than an invitation to treat.
Harvey v Facey [1893], is a contract law case decided by the United Kingdom Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on appeal from the Supreme Court of Judicature of Jamaica. In 1893 the Privy Council held final legal jurisdiction over most of the British Caribbean. Its importance in case law is that it defined the difference between an offer and supply of information. The Privy Council held that indication of lowest acceptable price does not constitute an offer to sell. Rather, it is considered a response to a request for information, specifically a "precise answer to a precise question" about the lowest acceptable price which the seller would consider.
In English contract law, an agreement establishes the first stage in the existence of a contract. The three main elements of contractual formation are whether there is (1) offer and acceptance (agreement) (2) consideration (3) an intention to be legally bound.
Brogden v Metropolitan Railway Company (1876–77) L.R. 2 App. Cas. 666 is an English contract law case which established that a contract can be formed by the conduct of the parties.
The Indian Contract Act, 1872 prescribes the law relating to contracts in India and is the key act regulating Indian contract law. The Act is based on the principles of English Common Law. It is applicable to all the states of India. It determines the circumstances in which promises made by the parties to a contract shall be legally binding. Under Section 2(h), the Indian Contract Act defines a contract as an agreement enforceable by Law.
Interpreting contracts in English law is an area of English contract law, which concerns how the courts decide what an agreement means. It is settled law that the process is based on the objective view of a reasonable person, given the context in which the contracting parties made their agreement. This approach marks a break with previous a more rigid modes of interpretation before the 1970s, where courts paid closer attention to the formal expression of the parties' intentions and took more of a literal view of what they had said.
The South African Railways Class 16DA 4-6-2 of 1928 was a steam locomotive.
The South African Railways Class NG7 2-6-0 of 1902 was a narrow gauge steam locomotive from the pre-Union era in the Cape of Good Hope.
The South African Railways Class NG9 4-6-0 of 1915 was a narrow-gauge steam locomotive.
The South African Railways Class NG G12 2-6-2+2-6-2 of 1927 was an articulated narrow-gauge steam locomotive.
South African contract law is "essentially a modernized version of the Roman-Dutch law of contract", and is rooted in canon and Roman laws. In the broadest definition, a contract is an agreement two or more parties enter into with the serious intention of creating a legal obligation. Contract law provides a legal framework within which persons can transact business and exchange resources, secure in the knowledge that the law will uphold their agreements and, if necessary, enforce them. The law of contract underpins private enterprise in South Africa and regulates it in the interest of fair dealing.
Kragga Kamma Estates CC and Another v Flanagan is an important case in the South African law of contract, an appeal from a decision in the South Eastern Cape Local Division by Jansen J. It was heard in the Appellate Division on August 19, 1994, with judgement handed down on September 29. The presiding officers were EM Grosskopf JA, Nestadt JA, Kumleben JA, Howie JA and Nicholas AJA. The appellants' attorneys were Tobie Oosthuizen, Port Elizabeth, and Webbers, Bloemfontein. The respondent's attorneys were Jankelowitz, Kerbel & Schärges, Port Elizabeth, and Lovius-Block, Bloemfontein. HJ van der Linde appeared for the appellants; JRG Buchanan SC for the respondent.
The South African law of sale is an area of the legal system in that country that describes rules applicable to a contract of sale, generally described as a contract whereby one person agrees to deliver to another the free possession of a thing in return for a price in money.
East London Model Dairy Co-Operative v Toyk is an important case in South African law. An action for an order cancelling a sale, and for the refund of the purchase price, it was heard in the Eastern Districts Local Division by De Villiers J November 9, 10 and 11, 1954, with judgment handed down on December 9. The plaintiffs' attorneys were RG White, Gillett & McConnachie. The defendant's attorneys were Segal & Pincus. AW Back, QC, appeared for the plaintiff; NC Addleson for the defendant
The law of agency in South Africa regulates the performance of a juristic act on behalf or in the name of one person by another, who is authorised by the principal to act, with the result that a legal tie arises between the principal and a third party, which creates, alters or discharges legal relations between the principal and a third party. Kerr states that, in legal contexts, the word "agent" is most commonly used of a person whose activities are concerned with the formation, variation or termination of contractual obligations, and that agency has a corresponding meaning. It is the agent's position as the principal's authorised representative in affecting the principal's legal relations with third parties that is the essence of agency.
The Cape Government Railways 4th Class 4-6-0TT of 1884 was a South African steam locomotive from the pre-Union era in the Cape of Good Hope.
The South African Railways and Harbours Administration (SAR&H) was established on 31 May 1910 with formation of the Union of South Africa by the amalgamation of the four colonial railways and all harbours in South Africa - about 11,000 kilometres of track. It would manage road transport and pipelines in South Africa. It also managed South African Airways from 1934 to 1997. It was reorganised and renamed in 1981 as the South African Transport Services (SATS). In 1990 it became Transnet.
 | This article relating to case law in South Africa is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |