It is probably fair to assume that the majority of the visitors to The Heritage Portal, except the lawyers, have had little inclination, or even the necessity, to read a “law report”, which is the technical name for the full text of a decision delivered by a judicial officer when it is published.

It is our intention to rectify this lacuna by unpacking some of the major legal decisions that have shaped the course of South African history. Hopefully we’ll do this in manner which is both enlightening and entertaining, and which will inspire one or two readers to dig even deeper and read the full judgment.

We recently read an article on The Heritage Portal dealing with the notorious Foster Gang (click here to view). This triggered a recollection that the activities of the Foster gang had precipitated the events which led to the decisions of the Cape Supreme Court in Bloom v The American Swiss Watch Co 1913 CPD 673 and the Appellate Division in Lee v American Swiss Watch Co 1914 AD 121.

Even though we were mistaken about the involvement of the Foster Gang, the factual background to the case did occur contemporaneously with the activities of the Foster Gang and a theft was involved!

Distilled to its essence:

• A theft had occurred at the premises of City Jewellers in Cape Town;
• A director of American Swiss (which owned City Jewellers) placed an advertisement in the Cape Argus offering a reward of £500 to any person who gave information to the CID which lead to the arrest of thieves and to the recovery of the diamond jewellry and other items which had been stolen.
• Bloom who was not aware of the advertisement provided the information to the police which in fact culminated in the arrest of the thieves and the recovey of stolen goods.
• Lee, who was aware of the terms of advert, also provided information on the identity of thieves to the police but only after Bloom had beaten Lee to the punch and provided similar information. To be clear - when Lee provided the information to the police, the police were already in possession of the information which had been provided by Bloom.
• Both Bloom and Lee attempted without success to claim the reward of £500. 

The question which the court had to decide was whether the advertisement was intended to create a binding offer and whether either of the claimants of the reward had complied with the condition to provide the information in a manner which constituted an acceptance of the offer and resulted in a contractual obligation on American Swiss to pay the amount of reward.

In Bloom’s case the court held there was no principle in terms of which a person who was ignorant of a published offer but who complies with its terms could subsequently take advantage of the offer and consequently, even though the information provided by Bloom did lead to the apprehension of the thieves and the recovery of the jewellry, he could not claim the reward. The court found that when he provided the information Bloom had no intention to enter into a contract to accept the offer of the reward (known technically as the animus contrahendi).

What may be more surprising is that Lee, who did know about the offer when he provided the information also did not succeed with his claim of the reward. In this instance the court held that the proper interpretation of the advertisement was an offer of a single amount of £500 to the first person to give the information complying with the requirements of the offer. That person was Bloom, and his inability to recover (because as pointed out above he did not have the required intention) did not allow Lee to now step into his place.

These cases and others such as:

• Crawley v R  1909 TS 1105 which was a criminal case of trespass against a defendant who refused to leave the premises of a competitor on the grounds that he was exercising his right to accept an offer publicised by the competitor store; and 
• Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256 where Lindley LJ said:

Read the advertisement how you will and twist it about as you will, here is a distinct promise expressed in language which is perfectly unmistakeable.

set the basis of the law regarding the acceptance of offers contained in advertisements which continues to be developed today especially with the advent of digital advertising. The Consumer Protection Act 2008 for example contains specific rules relating to:

• “bait advertising” which occurs where an advertiser offers a particular item for sale with the intention of “baiting” the purchaser to actually accept a substitute product at a higher cost;
• catalogue marketing which applies to an agreement for the supply of goods or services that is not entered into in person, including an agreement concluded – telephonically, if the contact is initiated by the consumer; or by postal order; or fax or in any similar manner in which, with respect to goods, the consumer does not have the opportunity to inspect the goods that are the subject of the transaction before concluding the agreement.
• trade coupons and promotional offers which inter alia require that the person who makes or sponsors a promotional offer must ensure that the supply of the particular prize, reward, gift, free or reduced price good, or the capacity to provide enhanced quality or services, is sufficient to accommodate all reasonably anticipated demands resulting from the offer;
• promotional competitions which includes any competition, game, scheme, arrangement, system, plan or device for distributing prizes by lot or chance irrespective of whether a participant is required to demonstrate any skill or ability before being awarded a prize.

We trust you enjoyed this initial excursion in the realms of the legal system and that you’ll join us on future journeys which will explore a diverse range of subjects including more on the law of contract, company law, constitutional law, the law of delict, the law of persons, criminal law and evidence to name but a few.

Our ultimate objective is to publish a collection of cases (in a slightly more expanded format than we will present in this column) entitled : “Cases that Shaped South Africa”. This work will be published in epub (for readers on smartphones and tablets), in eMagazine format (suitable for laptop and desktop computers) and hard-copy for the traditionalists. Click here to view the cover and the provisional publication date of the epub version internationally.

Graeme Fraser (BA LLB LLM HDip Tax) and Veldra Fraser are corporate and commercial law consultants who operate under the Company Law Today brand (www.companylawtoday.co.za). We have a passionate interest in legal writing and in particular the collection of cases from South Africa and other jurisdictions. We have co-authored, self-published and marketed over 23 books since 2010 (and there are more in the pipeline. Graeme also wrote "Summit Vision" an account of the lessons he learned creating co-ordinating and completing the Millennium Big 5 Challenge in the year 2000 : Dusi Canoe Marathon, Midmar Mile Swim, Cape Argus Cycle, Comrades and an ascent to Uhuru Peak on Mt Kilimanjaro.