1123
[2]
QUESTION 3
-1 Study the following scenario carefully and answer the question that follows:
Buhle and Rita conclude a contract of purchase and sale on 1 March 2024 in
terms of which Buhle sells her slowcooker to Rita. They agree that Rita may
collect the machine on 10 March 2024. When Rita arrives at Buhle's house on 10
March 2024, they discover that the slowcooker is missing. Buhle's house was
burgled in July of the previous year, but Buhle did not realise at the time (or at
any point thereafter) that the slowcooker was amongst the items stolen from her
home. Buhle insists that she and Rita has an agreement and that it is not her fault
that the slowcooker is now missing. She demands that Rita still pay the purchase
price.
Is Buhle entitled to demand that Rita pay the purchase price? Motivate your answer.
(4)



Answer :

In this scenario, the key issue is whether Buhle is entitled to demand that Rita pay the purchase price for the slowcooker even though it is missing when Rita comes to collect it. 1. According to the general rule of contract law, the seller (Buhle) must deliver the goods to the buyer (Rita) as specified in the agreement. In this case, the agreement was for Rita to collect the slowcooker on 10 March 2024. 2. However, the missing slowcooker due to the burglary raises the issue of "impossibility of performance." If the subject matter of the contract (the slowcooker) is destroyed without the fault of either party, the contract becomes impossible to perform, and the parties are generally discharged from their obligations. 3. Buhle's argument that she and Rita had an agreement is valid, but the unforeseen circumstances of the burglary and the missing slowcooker constitute an impossibility that was beyond Buhle's control. 4. In this situation, Buhle is not entitled to demand that Rita pay the purchase price because the slowcooker is no longer available for delivery as agreed upon. Rita cannot be held responsible for paying for something that Buhle cannot provide due to circumstances beyond her control. 5. Therefore, based on the principle of impossibility of performance, Buhle cannot insist that Rita pay the purchase price for the missing slowcooker. Rita would likely be entitled to either cancel the contract or request a refund of any payments made. In conclusion, in a situation where the subject matter of a contract becomes impossible to deliver through no fault of either party, the party unable to perform is generally not entitled to demand payment.