Definition of Quasi Mutual Assent

Two main elements are required for mutual consent: offer and acceptance. If a man, whatever the actual intention, behaves in such a way that a reasonable person would believe that he accepts the terms proposed by the other party, and another party enters into the contract with him on the basis of that belief, the man who behaves in this manner would also be bound as if he had intended to: 9 3.2.1 False appeal to the doctrine of quasi-mutual consent When two of the parties who wish to conclude a contract negotiate the terms. Acceptance of these Terms constitutes mutual consent. While mutual consent is an important part of creating a binding legal contract, it is important to understand that this agreement is not binding in itself. The doctrine of quasi-mutual consent is undoubtedly part of our law and has been affirmed and applied in a number of important decisions.1 Its necessity and importance have also been recognized by lawyers. As one author puts it:2 As a prelude to this recommendation, it is important to repeat the main model of this note, which is that the Supreme Court of Appeal was wrong to simply ignore non-compliance with the letter as a prescribed type of acceptance in Pillay v. Shaik and invoke the doctrine of quasi-mutual consent. To the extent that the written form is prescribed as a method of acceptance of an offer, an effective contract is concluded only when the acceptance has been made in that manner. According to the principle set out in Laws v. Rutherfurd, where a method of acceptance of an offer has been prescribed, compliance with that method can only be effectively circumvented by a positive argument of tacit waiver of the prescribed method. Based on this premise, the recommended alternative approach is developed. Mutual consent applies to oral and written agreements.

A written contract is generally easier to perform than an oral contract, but if there is a dispute related to an oral contract, the courts will consider whether mutual consent has taken place. The courts use what is known as the «reasonable person test» to decide whether there is mutual consent. With this test, the court will consider the circumstance in which the contract was entered into and then determine what the agreement would have meant to a reasonable person. Mutual consent is how two parties begin to form a contract, but it cannot be used as a binding contract.3 min read The same principle was upheld by the court in Goldblatt v Freemantle.41 There, the court concluded that the letter had been prescribed as a formality for entering into the contract and found the «contract» invalid because the supplier had not signed. The court did not rely on the doctrine of quasi-mutual consent, even though the supplier had already begun to supply the goods covered by the contract. When two parties agree to enter into a contract, this is called mutual consent. The application of the doctrine of quasi-mutual consent in Pillay v. Shaik5 prompted the writing of this note. This note calls into question the application of the doctrine of quasi-mutual consent to settle the dispute in pillay v. Shaik and makes some recommendations, first, on how the Supreme Court of Appeal should have settled the dispute and, second, on what might have justified the application of the doctrine of quasi-mutual consent. A brief account of the doctrine of quasi-mutual consent is given, as it lays the foundation for the most important claims. While mutual consent is important, this agreement alone cannot create a binding contract.

Once an initial agreement has been reached, several further steps must be taken to make a contract legally binding. Mutual consent is usually demonstrated by evidence that an offer has been submitted and accepted. If two parties agree on conditions that meet certain requirements, mutual consent has been reached. The acceptance of these original conditions is the first step in drafting the contract. This raises the question of whether the doctrine of quasi-reciprocal consent can be applied in circumstances where acceptance is not effected in a prescribed manner, but where the conduct of the target consignee is likely to give rise to a reasonable suspicion on the part of the supplier that the offer has been duly accepted in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Seen in the light of the basic principle, the answer to the question must certainly be in the affirmative, since the considerations underlying the application of the reliability theory apply as strongly in a case such as the present one as in cases where no type of hypothesis is prescribed and where the misrepresentation of the target addressee relates only to the fact that there is no consensus. The Supreme Court`s decision in Pillay v. Shaik raises two very important issues that touch on two principles of contract law. First, it emphasizes the interaction between subjective consensus and the prescribed manner in which an offer is accepted and/or self-imposed formalities, the issue of which should prevail if the parties had clearly agreed to them for the final conclusion of a contract, but then ignored them.

That is, it raises the question of whether the courts should implement the content or form of the contract. The answer to that question is justified by one of the fundamental principles of contract law, namely freedom of contract. Second, the judgment highlights the lack of understanding of the role of the doctrine of quasi-mutual consent in our law. When reviewing the agreement, both parties review the proposed agreement and assess the potential benefits and risks. During this stage, both parties must also decide whether they can trust each other. An agreement is reached when both parties have agreed to the proposed terms. This agreement is usually oral and is also called mutual consent. The parties can verify the agreement by signing a contract or simply by confirming it orally. The doctrine of quasi-mutual consent (hereinafter referred to as «the doctrine») is one of the three theories for the formation of treaties in our law and a compromise between the other two, namely the theory of will and declaration.6 Also known as the theory of trust, the doctrine has its origin in English law and dates back to 1848.

The doctrine was formulated in the English case freeman v. Cooke7, but popularized by the following statement by Justice Blackburne in Smith v. Hughes:8 According to Steyn v. LSA Motors,57 the overriding consideration appears to be when the trust is reasonable, when all the circumstances are taken into account, and not so much when it is a separate special requirement for the conduct of the parties.58 The Steyn Court held that the conduct of both Parties, taking into account all the circumstances surrounding it, as well as its determination. On the contrary, the Supreme Court in Pillay v. Shaik appears to have only considered the fact that the salespeople`s conduct was misleading. The court appears to have ignored the fact that the buyers had prescribed a written form that should have prevented reliance on the sellers` conduct. You have to understand that the court does not take into account what the parties to the agreement thought the agreement meant, but only what a reasonable person would have understood.

The possible reason why the Supreme Court of Appeal did not consider waiver as a possibility stems from the fact that the Tribunal distinguished between the letter as a prescribed form of acceptance, on the one hand, and the letter as a self-imposed formality for entering into a contract, on the other.