You are consulted by Thuli she advices you as follows.

1. On 1 March 2020 she entered into a written, fixed-term lease agreement with AndileSeshoka in terms of which Seshoka leased to her a property situated at 19 MainRoad (owned by him) for a monthly rental of R12000 for a two year period until 28February 2022.

2. The premises had been used by the previous lessees as a restaurant for severalyears. After your client had satisfied herself (after a thorough analysis of theprospects of success) that a restaurant business was a viable proposition, sheconcluded the lease agreement with the intention of opening Thuli's Diner.

3. Seshoka knew that this was her intention, and it was a term of the agreement that theproperty was being leased for the purposes of a restaurant business, and not forresidential or any other purposes.

4. It was a further term of the agreement that the lessor would ensure that therestaurant license in the name of the previous tenant would be transferred into Thuli'sname, which was duly done.

5. On 27 March 2020 a State of Disaster was declared by Government due to theCovid-19 pandemic, and restaurants (along with most of the economy) were notpermitted to operate. Thuli adapted to this setback, however, and used the time toprepare for the opening of her business.

6. In June 2020, before the lockdown regulations permitted her to open the Thuli'sDiner, Thuli received notice from the local Municipality that a portion of Main Road,including no. 19, had been re-zoned for residential purposes in order to make way formuch-needed accommodation for students at the local university. The notice statedthat the re-zoning would take effect on 1 August 2020, and that her license to pursueher restaurant business would be withdrawn from that date.

7. Thuli immediately told Seshoka about this, who said that he knew nothing about theintended re-zoning. He was mortified by the news, as he had renovated and refurbished the premises several years ago specifically for the purposes of a restaurantat great personal expense, and doubted that he would be able to find a new tenant.Further, he would have to spend a lot of money to renovate the premises forresidential purposes.

8. On 30 June 2020 Thuli delivered a letter to Seshoka in which she cancelled the leaseagreement in terms of section 14(2)(b)(i)(bb) of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of2008. In the letter she advised him of her intention to vacate the premises on 31 July2020, which she duly did, having paid the rental due until that date.

9. In August Thuli was shocked to receive a letter from Seshoka's attorneys demanding cancellation penalties amounting to the equivalent of three months rental (R36 000)in terms of section 14(3)(b)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act.

1. What were the main issues in dispute in this case?

2.What, briefly, were the essential facts of this case?

3. Explain the law and legal principles relevant to this case.

REFRENCE LIST

Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008.

D Hutchison and C Pretorius (eds) The Law of Contract in South Africa 3 ed (2017) chapter 8

Bayley v Harwood 1953 (3) SA 239 (T); 1954 (3) SA 498 (A).

Wilson v Smith and Another 1956 (1) SA 393 (W).