Not everyone knows that the verbal agreements we make every day are, with very few exceptions, every bit as valid and enforceable as formal written contracts. 

We’ll discuss the dangers of that with reference to a recent High Court fight between two ex-friends over a R1m payment made by one of them to the other’s company. Was it an at-risk investment in the company or the agreed purchase price of a 5% shareholding? The Court’s ruling on the contradictory evidence put before it offers valuable lessons to us all when it comes to the dangers of making oral agreements. 

Everyone knows about the very strong employee protections provided by our employment laws. But we aren’t all as clear on when an employer is legally justified in hiring someone on a fixed term contract basis rather than on the standard “permanent employee” basis.  

Read on for a discussion of what a fixed term contract is, when it can legally be used and what protections are afforded to such employees and in what circumstances. We’ll focus specifically on the “reasonable prospect of renewal” protection and on the three-month limit applicable to some contracts.

A body corporate’s right and duty to collect levies from section owners, and to pursue those who fall into arrears, can be an onerous one. 

Good news, then, for trustees – and for those section owners faithfully paying their levies every month. Per a recent High Court decision, a body corporate can, in appropriate cases, get authorisation to cut an owner’s electricity supply. We list the reasons for the body corporate’s victory: a recipe for success that other trustees would do well to follow.

“Objective” v “Subjective”

You’ll come across these terms most often in civil claims, employment disputes, criminal cases, contracts (including property sale agreements) and constitutional matters. But what do they mean? When our law requires an objective approach, courts assess facts, logical arguments, and impersonal standards, uninfluenced by personal beliefs. But when courts apply a subjective test, they consider an individual’s actual thoughts, beliefs, interpretations or intentions.

For example, if you are suing someone for damages and trying to prove negligence, the court will ask what a reasonable person would have done, or not done, to avoid harming you (an objective, impersonal standard), rather than whether the other person actually intended to cause you harm (a subjective, personal standard).