CHOOSE THE MOST APPROPRIATE ANSWER. Which of the following statements in relation to Lloyd v Mitchell [2004] ALL SA 542 (C), is false? 1. The court held that in the instance where a party accepts an offer to marry while unaware of the fact that the offeror is already married, the engagement contract is voidable. 2. The court held that the promise to marry was void and neither party was entitled to damages for the breach of promise. 3. The court held that the engagement agreement is void, even if the parties made the engagement conditional upon the married party first become divorced. 4. The Court held that the parties did not fulfil the requirement of competence to act in respect of the engagement. 5. The court held that a party making a promise to marry another whilst he/she is still married is unlawful and contra bonos mores In Moola v Aulsebrook 1969 2 SA 349 (W), a widow, whose marriage to the deceased had been solemnised by a Muslim priest, wished for the marriage to be afforded legal recognition so that she and her children could inherit from her late husband's estate. In this case, the court held that: 1. They could only inherit if they went to a magistrate to register their civil marriage within two weeks of the religious ceremony because the Muslim priest had told them he was not a civil marriage officer. 2. They could inherit, as the spouses had genuinely but mistakenly believed that they were being married by a Muslim priest who was also a registered civil marriage officer. 3. They could not inherit because Muslim religious marriages were not recognised at all under South African civil law. 4. They could inherit only if the Muslim priest who concluded the Muslim religious marriage was also a duly appointed civil marriage officer. 5. They could only inherit if the Minister of Home Affairs had ratified the marriage within three months of its solemnisation A marriage is not rendered voidable by: 1. Concealment of sterility. 2. Innocent misrepresentation. 3 Material misrepresentation. 4. Stuprum. 5. Knowledge of the other spouse's impotence prior to marriage. In Schwarts v Schwarts 1984 (4) SA 467 (A) the court provided guidance on the meaning of 'irretrievable breakdown of a marriage'. Accordingly, the court held that the concept comprises two components: the objective component and the subjective component. Select the statement below that offers the most appropriate explanation of the components. 1.The needs and wealth of both the parties. 2. Malicious desertion and habitual imprisonment. 3 The present attitude of the parties and the history of the marriage relationship. 4. The present attitude of the parties and the fact the one party committed adultery. 5. Adultery and malicious desertion