Invalidating a contract


In the late 19th century, under the general influence of English law ‘and the particular dominating influence of Lord Henry de Villiers CJ’, the courts reinterpreted iusta causa to be valuable consideration (causa lucrativa), a quid pro quo, and necessary for a valid contract.where the court took the view that a binding contract may be constituted by any serious and deliberate agreement made with the intention of creating a legal obligation, rejecting the consideration doctrine of English law.There is a close similarity between a breach of contract and a delict, in that both are civil wrongs and may give rise to a duty to pay damages as compensation.It is unsurprising, then, that certain conduct may constitute both a breach of contract and a delict (as when, in Van Wyk v Lewis, a surgeon negligently left a cotton swab inside a patient’s body), in which case there is concurrent liability, permitting the plaintiff to sue on either basis.Under Roman-Dutch law, the broad notion of causa was necessary to create obligations and could include love and affection, moral consideration, or past services, among other things.Contractual relationships required a iusta causa rising from a lawful or just right, title, or cause of action.A nudum pactum was redefined as any agreement unenforceable for lack of causa.In the late 19th century and influenced by English law and Lord Henry de Villiers CJ, the courts reinterpreted iusta causa as valuable consideration, a quid pro quo, and necessary for a valid contract.



Subjective consensus of this nature exists when all the parties involved: Where there is a divergence between the true intention and the expressed or perceived intention of the parties, the question of whether or not a legal system will uphold a contract depends on its approach to contract: Is it subjective (focused on an actual consensus), or is it apparent or objective (focused on the external appearance of agreement)?release, novation), real or transfer agreements (whereby rights are transferred; e.g. The modern concept of contract is generalised so that an agreement does not have to conform to a specific type to be enforced, but contracting parties are required to conduct their relationship in good faith (bona fides). An obligation is a legal bond (vinculum iuris) between two or more parties, obliging the obligor (the ‘debtor’) to give, do or refrain from doing something to or for the obligee (the ‘creditor’).The right created by an obligation is personal, a ius in personam, as opposed to a real right (ius in re).The words ‘creditor’ and ‘debtor’ apply not only in respect of a claim for money, but to a claim for anything else that is owed—whether unconditionally, conditionally, or in the future.