(i) Whether ostensible authority relied on by the Applicant was established. They dishonestly credited the CEO with the idea.
Instead, Vodacom’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and the director created a false narrative pertaining to the origin of the idea on which the product was based. Despite the product being a success, Vodacom did not negotiate compensation for the use of the Applicant’s idea. It was customary within Vodacom to make and implement business decisions before they received the approval of the board, the product was also launched before Vodacom’s Board approved it on March 15, 2001. Despite the fee charged it was an instant hit with customers and raked in a lot of money for Vodacom.
Lucy pocket yoga pants for free#
The service was offered for free for a limited period from the date of its launch, later Vodacom charged for it. The newsletter also declared its success. Vodacom’s internal newsletter stated that thanks to the Applicant who suggested the service to the product development team, which took up the idea, Vodacom had launched a new product called ‘Please Call Me’. The product enabled a cellphone user with no airtime to send a message to the other cellphone user, asking that person to call. However, they agreed that in the event of them failing to agree on the amount, Vodacom’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO) would determine the amount.īased on the Applicant’s idea Vodacom developed a new product which was called, “Please Call Me” (product). Although the Applicant had indicated that he wanted 15% of the revenue, the parties deferred their negotiations on the amount to be paid to the Applicant for a later date. If the product was successful then the Applicant would be paid a share in the revenue generated by it.
Lucy pocket yoga pants trial#
The Applicant and the director negotiated and agreed that Vodacom would use the Applicant’s idea to develop a new product which would be put on trial for commercial viability. His mentor, Mr Lazarus Muchenje, advised him to speak to the Director of Product Development and Management, Mr Philip Geissler(director). The idea was reduced to writing and the Applicant consulted his superior and mentor at Vodacom for advice on how he could have sold it to any of the cellphone service providers, including Vodacom. The Applicant came up with an idea in terms of which a cellphone user who did not have airtime would be able to send a request to another cellphone user who had airtime to call the former.
During the year 2000, the Applicant was employed by Vodacom as a trainee accountant. The Applicant, Mr Kenneth Nkosana Makate, was a former employee of the Respondent, Vodacom (Pty) Limited (Vodacom). Mogoeng CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Cameron J, Jafta J, Khampepe J, Madlanga J, Matojane AJ, Nkabinde J, V.Westhuizen J, Wallis AJ and Zondo JĬommercial law – contracts – capacity to enter into contracts – contracts by agents – actual and ostensible authority of an agent – ostensible authority – whether the director had ostensible authority to enter into an agreement with the Applicant on behalf of the Respondent – Whether the agreement between the Applicant and the director on the Applicant’s remuneration for his idea was binding upon VodacomĬivil Practice and procedures -pleadings - ostensible authority - Distinction between ostensible authority and estoppel - whether it was necessary to plead ostensible authority in replicationĬonstitutional law - interpretation of the Constitution – interpretation of legislation – interpretation of the word debt – Constitution of The Republic of South Africa, section 39 (2), Prescription Act 68 of 1969(South Africa), Sections 10(1), 11(d), 12(d)Ĭommercial law – prescription of debts – extinction of debts by prescriptions – periods of prescription of debts – when prescription begins to run – whether the Applicants claim prescribed – Prescription Act 68 of 1969(South Africa), sections 10 (1), 11 (d) and 12 (2) and (3)Ĭommercial law –Agency – contracts by agents – essential elements of contracts by agents –defenses in contracts by agents – estoppel – whether the Respondent was estopped from performing its obligation under the contract entered into by the Applicant and the director In the matter between Kenneth Nkosana Makate and Vodacom (Pty) Limited A Director of a Company has ostensible authority to enter into an agreement with an employee that is binding to the company
0 kommentar(er)
