This statement of the law, or what has been described as the Corondimas principle, has been much criticised, even though it has consistently been applied in subsequent cases. Although it was applied again, on the grounds of precedent, by the Appellate Division in Tuckers Land and Development v Strydom, its correctness was questioned and criticised, obiter by Van Heerden JA, and directly by Joubert JA. The latter, reviewing the old authorities, showed that the principle was not in accordance with Roman and Roman-Dutch law. "It would seem, however", wrote Tebbutt J in ABSA v Sweet,1993 (1) SA 318 (C). "that in a contract of lease no such considerations apply and a contractual relationship comes into existence between the lessor and the lessee on the signing of the lease although the resultant obligations arising from the lease may be suspended".323A. It is apparently also now accepted,Pothier 220.Wessels 1352.Kerr 4th ed. 339-40.De Wet & Yeats 137.Marnitz v Stark 1952 (2) SA 144 (N) at 148B.Peri-Urban Areas Health Board v Tomaselli 1962 (3) SA 346 (A). when a suspensive condition is fulfilled, that the contract and the parties' mutual rights 'relate back to, and are deemed to have been in force from, the date of the agreement and not from the date of the fulfilment of the condition, i.e. ex tunc’.323B.
