(a) Valid: Agreement meets all requirements for a valid contract.
(b) Invalid: Agreement involves illegal activity and harms innocent third party.
Here is an explanation of why the performance tendered in each of the following instances is invalid:
(a) Dudu agrees to sell one of his cows to Mathapelo for R15 000.
This performance is valid because it meets all of the requirements for a valid contract. There is an offer, an acceptance, consideration, and mutual assent. The cow is something of value that Dudu is offering to sell, and Mathapelo is offering R15 000 in exchange for the cow. This is a valid exchange of consideration. Additionally, both parties agree to the terms of the contract, which means that there is mutual assent.
(b) Sarah and Pholani agree that Sarah will burn down Freddy's house in exchange for Pholani's 2019 Mercedes GLC.
This performance is invalid because it is illegal and against public policy. Burning down someone's house is a crime, and contracts that involve illegal activities are unenforceable. Additionally, this contract is against public policy because it harms innocent third parties. Freddy did nothing wrong to Sarah or Pholani, and he should not have his house burned down as a result of their agreement.
Therefore, the performance tendered in scenario (b) is invalid because it is illegal and against public policy.
Question:
Read the two scenarios below and explain why the performance tendered in each of the following instances is invalid: (a) Dudu agrees to sell one of his cows to Mathapelo for R15 000. (1)(b) Sarah and Pholani agree that Sarah will burn down Freddy's house in exchange for Pholani's 2019 Mercedes GLC