I don't understand why everyone is so concerned with that email thing. Its an "aside" really.The legal question here really whether there was a meeting of the parties' minds - ie the so-called 'consensus ad idem'. For parties to be consensus ad idem they must have agreeed on (1) the subject matter of the contract, in this case the property, and (2)the selling price. Normally these two requirements are enough to conclude a contract. The contract need not take any specific form, it could be either verbal or in written. However, there is an exception to this general rule. This applies in contracts for the sale on land (also Credit agreements etc). Such contracts are not concluded until they are reduced to writing.Thus, it is not enough in such contracts that parties have fulfilled the initial two requirements (the Essentialia), if the contract is not reduced to writing it is void, ie never came to existence. The reasoning is simply - a contract for the sale of land must be in writing for lodgement with the Register of Deeds to effect transfer of ownership.
In the above scenerio one could challenge the validity of the contract on two basis: (1)Material Mistake - one could argue there was no meeting of the minds/ consensus on the purchase price.
(2)the contract was not reduced to writing - this is were the question of the "email" comes into operation.I suppose a clever lawyer, wishing to stretch the case, could make an issue of whether there was 'signature' and go into all sorts of definitions of that word found in various statutes. Unfortunately, that would be quite a futile exercise - the email exchange only goes to proving whether there was "Offer and Acceptance" ie in proving the first two requirements. The 'Contract', if there was indeed offer and acceptance, was never reduced to writing and there was never any registration. Neither did the parties agree that the contract would at a latter stage be reduced to writing. Its a tough contract to uphold for the plaintiff!!!
Slashdot Mirror
I don't understand why everyone is so concerned with that email thing. Its an "aside" really.The legal question here really whether there was a meeting of the parties' minds - ie the so-called 'consensus ad idem'. For parties to be consensus ad idem they must have agreeed on (1) the subject matter of the contract, in this case the property, and (2)the selling price. Normally these two requirements are enough to conclude a contract. The contract need not take any specific form, it could be either verbal or in written. However, there is an exception to this general rule. This applies in contracts for the sale on land (also Credit agreements etc). Such contracts are not concluded until they are reduced to writing.Thus, it is not enough in such contracts that parties have fulfilled the initial two requirements (the Essentialia), if the contract is not reduced to writing it is void, ie never came to existence. The reasoning is simply - a contract for the sale of land must be in writing for lodgement with the Register of Deeds to effect transfer of ownership. In the above scenerio one could challenge the validity of the contract on two basis: (1)Material Mistake - one could argue there was no meeting of the minds/ consensus on the purchase price. (2)the contract was not reduced to writing - this is were the question of the "email" comes into operation.I suppose a clever lawyer, wishing to stretch the case, could make an issue of whether there was 'signature' and go into all sorts of definitions of that word found in various statutes. Unfortunately, that would be quite a futile exercise - the email exchange only goes to proving whether there was "Offer and Acceptance" ie in proving the first two requirements. The 'Contract', if there was indeed offer and acceptance, was never reduced to writing and there was never any registration. Neither did the parties agree that the contract would at a latter stage be reduced to writing. Its a tough contract to uphold for the plaintiff!!!