Signed Agreement Is

It is important to distinguish between provisions that require a treaty and those that only make it questionable. Some documentation errors in the business domain can lead to the inclusion of agreements in one of these categories. For example, if decisions are made incorrectly within an enterprise, the contract may be invalidated or countervailable. One of the indicators that can be used to prove the existence of an agreement and that has come under the control of our courts is the conduct of the parties. In Cell C (Pty) Ltd v Zulu 2008 (1) SA 451 (SCA), Cell C entered into an agreement with Zulu under which Cell C Zulu was to supply a community container equipped with telephones and other devices. Cell C would also provide a mobile phone signal to the container for Zulu to operate a telecommunications service. These three conditions lead to a binding agreement. As strong as an indicator may be, the signing of an agreement is only one of many indicators that can demonstrate the existence of an agreement between the parties. It is these alternative indicators that become relevant to the parties when, in the hectic reality of trade, the judicial administration (signing of documents) in the name of the expiry of the time limit is relegated to the background. The Court of Appeal unanimously decided that, although the parties did not present a countersigned document or counter-contract, an agreement was reached to settle a number of the plaintiffs` claims, as agreed at the November 16, 2012 meeting.

However, most experts agree that the parties will soon forget the specific details of the agreement or disagree on their importance, so it is better to have them in writing. In the above-mentioned case, the parties argued over whether or not the parties had reached an agreement to settle a dispute over the completion of a joint construction project. One party argued that it did not intend to be bound before the formal execution of an agreement and that the transmission of a draft document after negotiation was only an offer of settlement. On November 16, 2012, the parties met twice and had more than three hours of discussions to negotiate the settlement deed. Following these meetings, a final document was prepared and faxed to the complainant`s chairperson (who also attended the meeting), who signed it and returned it to the respondents` lawyers. If you enter into an agreement with someone that contains all the elements of a contract (offer, acceptance, consideration and intent), you are both allowed to do so and the contract costs less than 500 $US, you often do not need a written contract. This means that no signature is required. In her letter to the Court, Justice Ann Lyons stated that the procedural judges` characterizations of the facts were correct and that the trial judge was free to conclude documents and evidence available to him that the parties understood that, although they had to go through the formality of having all parties sign the document, the real purpose of the meeting was: to reach a binding agreement between the authorized representatives (CEOs) of the parties. . .


  • Keine Kategorien