Saambou- Nasionale Bouvereniging v Friedman (1979 (3) SA 978 (A)

Saambou- Nasionale Bouvereniging v Friedman (1979 (3) SA 978 (A)

Facts

Saambou-Nasionale Bouvereniging (Saambou) was a building society in South Africa. Friedman, a professional golfer, was approached by an advertising agency to endorse Saambou's products. Friedman agreed to endorse Saambou's products, but only on the condition that he would not be personally liable for any debts incurred by Saambou.

The advertising agency created an advertisement that featured Friedman and the following statement: "Saambou-Nasionale Bouvereniging. The bank that's always there for you." The advertisement was published in a number of newspapers and magazines.

After the advertisement was published, Saambou incurred significant losses. Saambou sued Friedman for breach of contract, alleging that he had failed to honour his endorsement agreement. Friedman denied that he had breached any contract with Saambou.

Issues

The main issue in the case was whether Friedman had entered into a contract with Saambou.

Reasons

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa held that Friedman had not entered into a contract with Saambou. The court found that Friedman had consented to the advertisement being published, but that he had not consented to the terms of the endorsement agreement. The court also found that Saambou had made a material mistake when it entered into the endorsement agreement, because Saambou believed that Friedman had agreed to be personally liable for any debts incurred by Saambou.

Mistake

The court held that Saambou's mistake was material because it went to the root of the contract. The court also held that Friedman was not aware of Saambou's mistake and that he had not done anything to induce Saambou's mistake.

Consent

The court held that Friedman had not consented to the terms of the endorsement agreement. The court found that Friedman had only consented to the advertisement being published and that he had made it clear to the advertising agency that he would not be personally liable for any debts incurred by Saambou.

Conclusion

The court dismissed Saambou's claim against Friedman.

Summary

The case of Saambou-Nasionale Bouvereniging v Friedman (1979 (3) SA 978 (A)) is a landmark case in South African contract law. The case is particularly important for its analysis of the following issues:

• The requirements for a valid contract;
• The concept of mistake; and
• The concept of consent.

Requirements for a valid contract

The case established that there are three requirements for a valid contract:

1. Offer and acceptance;
2. Consideration; and
3. Intention to create legal relations.

Mistake

The case established that a mistake can invalidate a contract if it is material and if the other party to the contract is not aware of the mistake.

Consent

The case established that both parties to a contract must consent to the terms of the contract in order for the contract to be valid.