Irrevocable Agreement

The High Court decided that the irrevocable offer constituted a put option granted to the seller, which option agreement existed and created contractual obligations and rights for both the seller and the buyer. This contract must be distinguished from the contract of sale that would come into force if the seller accepted the buyer`s offer and exercised the option. While the contract of sale did not yet exist and therefore could not be breached, the option contract existed and could be breached by the seller and (depending on the nature of that breach) give the buyer the right to revoke the offer, although it was expressed as „irrevocable“. The Board of Directors intends the Plan to be permanent, but reserves the right to modify, supplement or terminate the Plan at any time, provided, however, that the benefits provided for therein constitute an irrevocable obligation on the part of the Company. Van`s Auctioneers conducted, on behalf of W &E le Roux (Pty) Ltd (W &E), a public auction at which Mr Van Niekerk made an offer and a contract of sale for the purchase of lot 1, a property with a building, a bakery and a `butcher shop with fridges and freezers` (the relevant part in the present case) for the total of R3, 3 million signed. The terms of sale contained a provision that the contract was an offer to purchase and that Van Niekerk, as buyer, was „irrevocably bound“ for a period of 14 days, while the offer was open for acceptance by the seller, W&E. In short, the High Court found that the option agreement imposed an implied obligation on the seller to preserve the Merx (the asset subject to the option and sale) and if the Merx were to be sold to another, would suffer material damage or alter its fundamental nature, the seller rejected the option agreement on the grounds that: the asset is no longer the same asset as the one envisaged by the supplier. to buy. The buyer can accept the resignation and revoke the irrevocable offer, as the buyer did in this case. However, the complexity of the relationship between the auctioneer and each seller and buyer is not relevant to this indication, which deals with agreements between seller and buyer. This analysis is not influenced by whether the seller or buyer acts directly or through an agent.

When someone talks about an irrevocable contract, they are often referring to an irrevocable offer – or more accurately a contract to make an offer irrevocable. Although almost all contractual offers can be made irrevocable, there are certain situations where irrevocable offers are common: waivers and declassifications. These are legal documents that waive a type of right. These documents are typically used to assign the right to sue for bodily injury or other damages, to permit the use of photos, to authorize the disclosure of certain information (such as financial or medical information), or to waive the right to assert a right of pledge of ownership. Declarations of renunciation and declassifications generally contain provisions that state that the waiver or release is irrevocable. W&E and Van`s Auctioneers then argued that Van Niekerk`s withdrawal of its offer was not valid, as the offer made is irrevocable and has not yet been accepted and van Nierkerk therefore has no right to withdraw its offer to purchase. Indeed, the auctioneer paid for the improvement of some demolition and moving work, because he incorrectly listed the objects to be removed at the auction as a separate lot. `repayment obligation` means the absolute, unconditional and irrevocable obligation of the borrower to repay to the issuing bank any draw granted by the issuing bank in connection with a credit. . . .