Jaco Rademeyer, from Jaco Rademeyer Estates, responds:
An Offer to Purchase when properly signed is per se a valid contract. In the same breath, the current tenants can stay on for the duration of their rental agreement without an increase in their rental.
A requirement for a valid contract is that the parties must be in consensus/agreement as to the terms of the contract. In this instance, there was clearly a mistake, although I would go as far as to rather term this an intentional misrepresentation on the seller’s part.
Our courts recognise different categories of mistakes, but important is that for a mistake to be relevant, such mistake must have influenced a party’s decision to conclude the contract in question. In this regard, a further distinction is made between material and non-material mistakes. A material mistake is an error which negates actual consensus between the parties, and, to this end, must exclude an element of consensus. A non-material mistake does not exclude actual consensus between the parties because it does not relate to an element of consensus.
My practical advice is to see an attorney as a matter of urgency, an attorney who specialises in litigation. The terms as set out in this offer to purchase, will determine the most cost effective route to follow in order to resolve this pending dispute. What is clear is that should the purchaser continue with the offer to purchase, he will suffer financial loss – loss which he could claim from the seller, although this could involve lengthy and costly litigation, and should be avoided as far as possible.