I

RM1501 Assignment 2 (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semes

ter 2 2025 (861902) - DUE 15 September 2025; 10
0% TRUSTED Complet
Find the case of Global & Local Investment Advisors (Pty) Ltd v
Fouche (71 /2019 (2020] ZASCA 8; 2021 (1) SA 371 SCA (18
March 2020) and summarize it in the prescribed format (facts,
legal question, reasons for the decision and the findings)
Case Summary: Global & Local Investment Advisors (Pty) Ltd v
Fouche
Citation:
 Case Number: 71/2019
 Neutral Citation: [2020] ZASCA 8
 Law Reports Reference: 2021 (1) SA 371 (SCA)
 Court: Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa
 Date of Judgment: 18 March 2020

1. Facts of the Case (What Happened?)

Background:
 Mr. Fouche was a private investor who entered into a
contractual relationship with Global & Local Investment
Advisors (Pty) Ltd, a financial services provider offering
investment advice and fund management.
  As part of the investment process, Fouche opened an
account with the company, signing documents that
included a clear written instruction: any withdrawals or
instructions regarding the account must be provided in
writing and signed by Fouche himself.
What went wrong?
 Later, the company received a series of emails
purportedly from Mr. Fouche, instructing them to transfer
large sums of money from his investment account.
 These emails were not signed (physically or digitally), and
only contained typed names. Despite the lack of signed
authorization, the company processed the instructions
and transferred the funds to the bank details provided in
the emails.
 It was later discovered that these emails were fraudulent
—they were not sent by Mr. Fouche, but by an unknown
third party (a fraudster) who had gained access to
Fouche’s email account or faked it.
 Mr. Fouche sued the investment company for the loss of
his funds, claiming that the company had acted in breach
of contract and had been negligent in not verifying
whether the email instructions were authentic or
compliant with the agreed procedure.
2. Legal Question (Issue Before the Court)
The central legal question the Supreme Court of Appeal had to
decide was:
Did Global & Local Investment Advisors act lawfully and
within the scope of the written agreement when they
accepted unsigned email instructions to transfer funds, and
are they liable for the financial loss resulting from the
fraudulent transactions?
In simpler terms:
 Was the company allowed, under the contract, to follow
email instructions that were unsigned?
 Or was it legally obligated to follow only written and
signed instructions as explicitly agreed with Mr. Fouche?

3. Reasons for the Decision (Legal Reasoning)

The SCA gave a detailed judgment on the interpretation of
contracts, negligence, and the duty of care in fiduciary
relationships like financial advisory.
Let’s break down the legal reasoning step by step:
A. Contractual Interpretation
  The court emphasized that the relationship between Mr.
Fouche and the company was governed by a written
agreement (a binding contract).
 This contract explicitly stated that only written
instructions signed by Mr. Fouche would be accepted for
transferring funds.
 The court applied the objective interpretation rule—
interpreting a contract according to its ordinary language
and what reasonable people would understand it to
mean.
📌 Key legal concept: Contractual autonomy — Parties are free
to define their rights and obligations in a contract, and those
terms must be respected.
B. Breach of Contract
 By acting on unsigned email instructions, the company
breached the contract, because it failed to follow the
agreed procedure for authorising withdrawals.
 The emails did not comply with the signed writing
requirement, and therefore, the company had no legal
authority to act on them.
C. Negligence and Duty of Care
 The court found that the company acted negligently by:
 o Failing to verify the authenticity of the email
instructions.
o Ignoring the expressly agreed requirement for signed
authorisations.
o Taking no steps to confirm the identity of the sender,
especially since it involved large sums of money.
📌 Key legal concept: Negligence — Occurs when someone fails
to take reasonable care, resulting in harm or loss to another
person. In this case, the financial advisor failed to act with due
diligence expected in handling client funds.
D. Electronic Communications
 The court acknowledged that email communication is
common in business, but electronic communication
cannot override a specific signed-instruction requirement
in a written agreement unless both parties agree to
change it.
📌 Key legal concept: Signature requirement — In law, a
“signature” serves to verify the identity and intent of the
person issuing the instruction. Typed names in emails don’t
qualify as legal signatures unless explicitly accepted under the
contract or through proper authentication.

4. Findings (Judgment/Decision of the Court)

The Supreme Court of Appeal ruled in favour of Mr. Fouche
and made the following findings:
 The company breached the agreement by acting on
instructions that were not signed as required.
 The emails were fraudulent, and the company had no
authority to process them.
 The company was found to have been negligent and was
thus liable for the losses suffered by Mr. Fouche.
 The appeal by the company was dismissed.
 The court ordered the company to pay Mr. Fouche’s legal
costs.

🔍 Key Takeaways and Legal Importance:

 Strict compliance with contractual terms is crucial,
especially in fiduciary or financial services.
 Written mandates requiring signatures must be followed
strictly—failure to do so may result in liability.
 Companies cannot rely on informal practices (like
unsigned emails) to override a clear written contract.
 Typed names in emails are not signatures unless both
parties agree to such a method of authorisation.
📚 OSCOLA-style Reference for the Case:
Global & Local Investment Advisors (Pty) Ltd v Fouche [2020]
ZASCA 8, 2021 (1) SA 371 (SCA).

1. Facts of the Case

Mr. Fouche, the respondent, held an investment account with
Global & Local Investment Advisors (Pty) Ltd, the appellant.
Fouche had previously signed a mandate agreement which
authorized the appellant to manage his investment portfolio on
his behalf.
Over time, the appellant received a number of emails that
appeared to come from Fouche, instructing them to make
certain payments to third-party accounts. Believing the emails
to be legitimate instructions from Fouche, the appellant
complied and transferred R804,000 in total.
However, those emails were later discovered to be fraudulent—
Fouche's email account had been hacked, and the instructions
were sent by a third party, not by Fouche himself.
Fouche then demanded that the investment company repay the
misappropriated funds, arguing that they were not authorized
to make the payments based on fraudulent instructions. The
investment company refused, arguing that they had acted in
good faith and followed what appeared to be genuine client
instructions.
Fouche sued for the recovery of the funds, and the High Court
ruled in his favour. The investment company then appealed to
the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA).

2. Legal Question
Was Global & Local Investment Advisors (Pty) Ltd legally
entitled to rely on the fraudulent email instructions, or were
they liable for paying out funds without proper authority from
Mr. Fouche?
In simpler terms:
Can an investment company act on fraudulent instructions that
appear to come from a client, and still escape liability?

3. Reasons for the Decision (Ratio Decidendi)

The SCA rejected the argument that the investment company
was authorized to rely on any email appearing to come from
Fouche. The court emphasized the importance of the original
mandate agreement, which stipulated that Fouche’s written
instructions were required.
Critically:
 The mandate required actual authority, and not just an
appearance of authority.
 The company had no express or implied authority to act
on forged or fraudulent emails.
 The appellant had the responsibility to verify the
authenticity of the instructions before acting on them.
The SCA found that email correspondence is inherently
vulnerable to fraud and companies dealing with financial assets
have a duty to verify instructions—especially when significant
amounts of money are involved.
Additionally, the court made it clear that this was not a case of
estoppel (where a person might be bound by the appearance of
consent), since Fouche did not, by his conduct, lead the
appellant to believe the emails were valid.

4. Findings (Conclusion / Order)

The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal with costs.
It confirmed the decision of the High Court, ruling that:
 The appellant (Global & Local Investment Advisors) acted
without proper authority when transferring funds based
on the fraudulent emails.
 The appellant was liable to repay the amount (R804,000)
to Fouche.
 The reliance on fraudulent instructions, even if genuine-
looking, did not excuse the company from liability.

Key Legal Principles from the Case

 A party acting on behalf of another must have actual
authority.
 A contractual mandate must be strictly adhered to.
 Fraudulent communications do not confer authority.
 Financial service providers must exercise caution and
verify instructions before acting.
Global & Local Investment Advisors (Pty) Ltd v Fouche [2020]
ZASCA 8; 2021 (1) SA 371 (SCA)
Case number: 71/2019
Date of judgment: 18 March 2020
Court: Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA)

1. Facts of the Case

Global & Local Investment Advisors (Pty) Ltd (“Global & Local”)
was an investment company authorised by Mr Fouche to
manage certain investments on his behalf. Fouche had a
mandate agreement with the company which authorised it to
act based on his written instructions.
A series of emails were received by Global & Local, allegedly
from Fouche, instructing them to transfer large sums of money
from his investment account to various third-party bank
accounts. These emails included scanned copies of Fouche's ID
and signatures. Relying on these emails, Global & Local
transferred over R804,000 as instructed.
Later, it emerged that the emails were fraudulent and had not
been sent by Fouche. Fouche sued the company for his lost
funds, claiming they acted without proper authority.
2. Legal Question
The central legal question was:
Did Global & Local Investment Advisors breach their mandate
by acting on unauthorised email instructions, and were they
therefore liable for the loss of Mr Fouche’s funds?
More specifically:
 Was the company entitled to rely on forged email
instructions that were not genuinely sent by the client?
 Did the original mandate permit action on instructions
received via email, regardless of verification?

3. Reasons for the Decision

The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) found the following:
 The original mandate agreement required written
instructions from Mr Fouche, but it did not authorise
action on unverified emails.
 The company’s reliance on forged email instructions
violated the terms of the mandate.
 Although the instructions appeared to come from Fouche
(due to the scanned signature and ID), Global & Local was
 not authorised to act unless it was truly Fouche’s written
instruction.
 The court applied the principle of the law of agency: an
agent (in this case, the investment company) may only act
within the scope of authority granted by the principal
(Fouche).
 The court rejected the investment company’s argument
that Fouche was negligent for not safeguarding his email
account. There was no evidence that Fouche had caused
or contributed to the fraud.

4. Findings / Court’s Decision

 The SCA held that Global & Local Investment Advisors was
liable for the losses because it acted without proper
authority.
 It was ordered to repay Fouche the amount of R804,000,
plus interest and legal costs.

Key Legal Principles Established

 A company or agent must ensure that instructions from a
principal are authentic and properly authorised,
especially when dealing with financial transactions.
 Email fraud does not relieve a service provider of liability
when acting outside the strict terms of the client
agreement.
 Clients are not automatically liable for cyberfraud unless
they were negligent or contributed to the fraud.