Contract Validity In Wolpert

Summary

In Wolpert v Uitzigt Properties (Pty) Ltd 1961 (2) SA 257 (W), the court upheld the contracts validity based on substantial performance, meaning the contract was enforceable despite minor incomplete obligations. The Turquand Rule, which protects third parties in company contracts, was not specifically applied in this case.

Full Conversation

which rule was invoked for it to remain valid
In Wolpert v Uitzigt Properties (Pty) Ltd * (*) SA * (W), the court invoked the principle of "substantial performance" to determine the contract's validity. This means the contract remains enforceable if the party has substantially fulfilled their obligations, even if minor aspects were incomplete.
Could you provide more details about your specific situation or any concerns you have about a contract?
what about Turquand
The Turquand Rule, also known as the "Indoor Management Rule," allows third parties to assume that internal company rules and procedures have been followed when entering into contracts with a company. This protects third parties from being disadvantaged by undisclosed internal irregularities.
Is there a specific contract or situation involving a company where you think the Turquand Rule might apply?
was it used in Wolpert
In the case of Wolpert v Uitzigt Properties (Pty) Ltd * (*) SA * (W), the Turquand Rule was not specifically invoked. The focus was more on the principle of "substantial performance" to validate the contract.
Do you have a specific contract issue you're dealing with that involves either substantial performance or the Turquand Rule?