held that the legislature’s reasons for requiring formalities is to prevent uncertainties, excludes disputes and avoid malpractices. It was held in Neethling v Klopper161 that the contract was void on account of conclusion without writing requirement envisaged by the statute. Examples of contracts where legislature prescribes formalities as prerequisites for the validity of various types of contracts include alienation of land, suretyship and other types.162 Van der Merwe outlines reasons for which formalities may be required, to wit, legal certainty which is provided by writing, coupled with identification, attribution, assent, and authentication, which are provided by signature.163 2.3.4 Time and place of contracting The time when, and the place where the contract comes into being may be established by the method of acceptance.164 The method of acceptance has important legal consequences for the time when a contract is concluded.165 The different theories which are employed to determine the place and time for conclusion of a contract to determine the moment when consensus is reached are stated below, and they tie in with the basic principles of offer and acceptance.166 2.3.4.1 Information theory The information theory relating to time and place of conclusion of contract is accepted as a general rule, and it stipulates that a contract is concluded when and where consensus is reached, at the place and the moment when the offeror is actually informed that the offer has been accepted.167 The theory revolves around the subjective knowledge of the offeror, the contract only comes into being once the offeror becomes aware that the offer has been accepted.168 Fern Gold Mining Co v Tobias,169 points out that the contract is established when the offeror comes to know of the acceptance. This theory finds no application with the technological advancements 161 Neetling v Klopper 1967 (4) SA 459. Christie (1996: 36). 163 Van der Merwe (2008: 163). 164 Kerr, AJ. (1998) “Principles of the Law of Contract,” 5 th ed, 109. 165 Pistorius (1999: 282 at 287). 166 Jason (2004: 38). 167 Van der Merwe (2003: 49); R v Nel 1921 AD at 339; S v Henckert 1981 (3) SA 445 at 451. 168 Jason (2004: 39). 169 Fern Gold Mining Co v Tobias 1890 (3) SAR 134. 162 17