Hainan Huaqi Industrial Development Company v. The People’s Government of Haikou City, and the Third Party: Hainan Xinming Real Estate Co., Ltd. (Dispute over Issuance of State-owned Land Use Certificate): The Determination and Adjudication on the Third-party Bona Fide Acquisitions in Administrative Litigation

2021 ◽  
pp. 97-109
Author(s):  
Hong Yu
Keyword(s):  
Land Use ◽  
Real Estate ◽  
Industrial Development ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Administrative Litigation ◽  
The Third ◽  
Bona Fide ◽  
The Third Party

Can Estoppel be Raised Against an Eviction in Terms of PIE?

2017 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 434-455
Author(s):  
Elmien WJ Du Plessis
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The Real ◽  
The Third ◽  
Tacit Consent ◽  
Bona Fide ◽  
The Third Party

Estoppel is a well-known defence against (or limitation on) the rei vindicatio. This would be the case for example where the owner by some representation creates the impression that a third party is the owner of a thing and that the third party has the capacity to alienate the property. The bona fide third party can, when the owner then institutes the rei vindication to recover his property, raise estoppel and preclude the real owner from claiming his property. Before 2002, if one wanted to evict an unlawful occupier from certain residential premises, one would institute the rei vindicatio. In Ndlovu v Ngcobo; Bekker v Jika [2002] 4 All SA 384 (SCA) the court, however, ruled that the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 (PIE) must be used in all instances of evicting people from urban residential premises. The question is: does estoppel serve as a defence/limit in the application of PIE? Surprisingly few cases deal with this issue. The court in Joe Slovo made a few remarks about the possibility of using estoppel as a defence against the rei vindicatio by looking at the interpretation of ‘tacit consent’ required by PIE. This article will interpret provisions of PIE and look at case law that deals with the use of estoppel in lease cases. It will conclude by remarking on the feasibility of using estoppel as a defence in PIE eviction cases.

scholarly journals Interference of the intervener in contractual relations: means of protecting a bona fide creditor

2021 ◽  
pp. 83-98
Author(s):  
Mikhail Leonidovich Osipov ◽  
Anastasiya Aleksandrovna Guseva
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Economic Losses ◽  
The Third ◽  
Bona Fide ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Contractual Relations ◽  
The Third Party

The subject of this article is relations that arise to interference of the third party (intervener) in contractual relations of the parties. The author considers the question of possible means of protecting a bona fide creditor from the actions of an intervener, such as challenging of the transaction consummated between the obligator and the intervener, as well as recovery of tort damages from the intervener for the benefit of a bona fide creditor. The article examines the issues emerging in the context of application of both methods of protection. The conclusion is made on the possibility of use of both methods, in preference to recovery of damages. It is noted that challenging of the transactions allows to equitably redistribute the burden of proof in disputes with a mala fide intervener, while the tort claim implies the possibility of recovering pure economic losses from a mala fide intervener. The authors indicate that the current Russian legislation does not contain dogmatic obstacles for application of such method of protecting a mala fide intervener.

Resolving tension from the third-party forgiveness effect

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaclyn M. Moloney ◽  
Chelsea A. Reid ◽  
Jody L. Davis ◽  
Jeni L. Burnette ◽  
Jeffrey D. Green
Keyword(s):  
Third Party ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Third Party

Relaxations of Contractual Privity and the Need for Third Party Rights in Chinese Contract Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chen Lei
Keyword(s):  
Direct Action ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Chinese Law ◽  
The Third ◽  
Right Of Action ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Third Party ◽  
The Right

This chapter examines the position of third party beneficiaries in Chinese law. Article 64 of the Chinese Contract Law states that where a contract for the benefit of a third party is breached, the debtor is liable to the creditor. The author regards this as leaving unanswered the question of whether the thirdparty has a right of direct action against the debtor. One view regards the third party as having the right to sue for the benefit although this right was ultimately excluded from the law. Another view, supported by the Supreme People’s Court, is that Article 64 does not provide a right of action for a third party and merely prescribes performance in ‘incidental’ third party contracts. The third view is that there is a third party right of action in cases of ‘genuine’ third party contracts but courts are unlikely to recognize a third party action where the contract merely purports to confer a benefit on the third party.

Contracts for the Benefit of Third Parties Under the Taiwan Civil Code

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheng-Lin JAN
Keyword(s):  
Civil Code ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The Third ◽  
Legal Relationship ◽  
The Third Party ◽  
Privity Of Contract

This chapter discusses the position of third party beneficiaries in Taiwan law where the principle of privity of contract is well established. Article 269 of the Taiwan Civil Code confers a right on the third party to sue for performance as long as the parties have at least impliedly agreed. This should be distinguished from a ‘spurious contract’ for the benefit of third parties where there is no agreement to permit the third party to claim. Both the aggrieved party and the third party beneficiary can sue on the contract, but only for its own loss. The debtor can only set off on a counterclaim arising from its legal relationship with the third party. Where the third party coerces the debtor into the contract, the contract can be avoided, but where the third party induces the debtor to contract with the creditor by misrepresentation, the debtor can only avoid the contract if the creditor knows or ought to have known of the misrepresentation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document