Some thoughts on the consequences of illegal contracts

Acta Juridica ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 177-202
Author(s):  
J du Plessis
Keyword(s):  
South African ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The Law

Few topics in the law of contract have generated as much debate as determining the effects of contracts that infringe statutory or common-law rules. While South African law has in some respects adopted remarkably progressive positions in these debates, especially by displaying flexibility in determining when parties may claim restitution, it also still applies some constructs, rules or maxims in a manner that impedes determining the appropriate consequences of infringing rules or illegality. In this regard it is argued (i) that the concept of an ‘illegal contract’ should be treated with caution, since different commentators automatically link it to different consequences; (ii) that the continued reference to a construct styled the par delictum rule is not helpful when determining whether duties of restitution arise from these contracts; and (iii) that the ex turpi maxim creates the misleading impression that tainted contracts are invariably unenforceable, whereas the reality may be quite different.

Liability of the State and Public Authorities in Israel and South Africa

2013 ◽  
pp. 1-47
Author(s):  
Max Loubser ◽  
Tamar Gidron
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
South African ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Economic Loss ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
The South ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Pure Economic Loss ◽  
The Law

Both the Israeli and the South African legal systems are classified as mixed legal systems, or mixed jurisdictions. In Israel, tort law was originally pure English common law, adopted by legislation and later developed judicially. In South Africa, the law of delict (tort) was originally Roman-Dutch but was later strongly influenced by the English common law. Under both systems, tort law is characterized by open-ended norms allowing extensive judicial development. This paper traces and compares the structural basis, methodology, policy, and trends of the judicial development of state and public-authority liability in the Israeli and South African jurisdictions. Specific factors that have impacted the development of state- and public-authority liability are: (1) constitutional values, (2) the courts’ recognition of the need for expanded protection of fundamental human rights and activism towards achieving such protection, (3) the multicultural nature of the societies, (4) problems of crime and security, and (5) worldwide trends, linked to consumerism, toward the widening of liability of the state and public authorities.Within essentially similar conceptual structures the South African courts have been much more conservative in their approach to state liability for pure economic loss than their Israeli counterparts. This can perhaps be attributed to a sense of priorities. In a developing country with huge disparities in wealth, the courts would naturally be inclined to prioritize safety and security of persons above pure economic loss. The South African courts have been similarly more conservative in cases involving administrative negligence and evidential loss.The development of the law on state and public-authority liability in Israel and South Africa is also the product of factors such as the levels of education, the effectiveness of the public service, and the history and pervasiveness of constitutional ordering. Despite important differences, the law in the two jurisdictions has developed from a broadly similar mixed background; the courts have adopted broadly similar methods and reasoning; and the outcomes show broadly similar trends.

scholarly journals A CRITICAL REFLECTION ON THE SOUTH AFRICAN LAW OF THE CHILD

Obiter ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
RB Bernard ◽  
MC Buthelezi
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
South African ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
Teddy Bear ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Minor Children ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
A Minor

Children are considered to be vulnerable, and therefore need to be protected against parents, strangers and even themselves. As a consequence, the State’s quest for the protection of children in South Africa is expressed in the implementation of legislation designed to offer greater care and protection. For instance, section 28 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, offers a wide range of rights which are designed to offer greater protection to children. The rights of children can, in effect, be categorized into two themes. The first relates to the protection of children – as the child is dependent on those around him or her due to a lack of capacity, and is therefore vulnerable. The second theme relates to the autonomy of children. Section 28(2) of the Constitution provides that in any matter concerning a child, the best interests of the child are of paramount importance. However, most South African legislative provisions that deal with minor children seem to miss this principle, and are riddled with inconsistencies. In many statutes, where the principle is recognized, there is either limited appreciation of the significance of the principle and its overall impact on issues concerning children, or there is no coherence with the manner the courts have interpreted and applied the principle. For example, the recent judgment of  the Teddy Bear Clinic case declared sections 15 and 16 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act unconstitutional. The judgment has been heavily criticized by different segments of society for encouraging teens to engage in wanton sexual intercourse, but illustrates some of the flaws in legislation aimed at protecting the welfare of minor children in South Africa. Furthermore, the common law and other legislation such as the Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act, the Marriage Act, and provisions of the Children’s Act regulating contraceptives and condoms, all contain such inconsistencies. For instance, the common law and section 24 (together with s 26) of the Marriage Act allow a minor from the age of puberty to enter into a valid marriage; section 129 of the Children’s Act requires that a minor aged twelve be assisted by a guardian to undergo a surgical operation; whereassections of the Choice Act do not require parental consent for terminating a minor’s pregnancy. This note reviews the above and other inconsistences currently prevalent in the law of the child in South Africa. A brief overview of the Teddy Bear Clinic case will be considered. Thereafter, it outlines and examines various gender-based contradictions in the law, and examines the possible rationale for justifying the particular legislative measure concerned. The note concludes by proposing possible solutions to the discrepancies that have been identified.

scholarly journals OF IMPLICATION, INSINUATION AND INCITEMENT R v Jones [2010] 3 All ER 1186 (CA)

Obiter ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shannon Hoctor ◽  
Samantha Krause
Keyword(s):  
South African ◽  
Common Law ◽  
English Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Way

Can the crime of incitement be committed by insinuation? Can a conversation about growing tomatoes by implication actually be aconversation about the crime of producing cannabis? These are the questions which arise from the recent English case of R v Jones ([2010] 3 All ER 1186 (CA)). Although the English law relating to the way in which encouraging crime is criminalised has recently changed, the similarities between the previous (common-law) position in England (which was the law to be applied in Jones) and the current South African law make for a useful comparison between these systems, and it is to this that we now turn.

Constructive Trusts in South African Law: The Legacy Refused

1999 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 341-358 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edwin Cameron
Keyword(s):  
South African ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Common Law ◽  
University Of Edinburgh ◽  
Joint Seminar ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Law ◽  
Trust Law ◽  
Law Commission

This paper was first presented on 19 October 1996 at a joint seminar of the Scottish Law Commission and the Faculty of Law, University of Edinburgh, on the subject of constructive trusts. Although trusts are a distinctively Common Law institution, seemingly incompatible with Civilian concepts of property, trust law has been received in the mixed South African legal system. But constructive trusts have found no place in South African trust law, in the view of the author, rightly so. Much of the work performed by the constructive trust can be achieved through the law of obligations, while the acceptance of the institution can produce anomalous results in insolvency.

MODERN FREEDOM OF TESTATION IN SOUTH AFRICA: ITS APPLICATION BY THE COURTS

2015 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Matsemela
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
South African ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
The South ◽  
Central Thesis ◽  
Locus Standi ◽  
Statutory Law ◽  
The Law

Freedom of testation is considered to be one of the founding principles of the South African law of testate succession. Testators are given freedom to direct how their estate should devolve and free rein to dispose of their assets as they deem fit. As a result, effect must be given to the expressed wishes of the testator. Prior to 1994, such freedom could be limited only by common law or statutory law; more recently, such freedom has been tested against the Constitution of South Africa. This means that a provision in a will cannot be enforced by the courts if it is contra bonos mores, impossible or too vague, in conflict with the law, or is deemed to be unconstitutional.Having regard to the unfair discrimination provisions of section 9(3) of the Final Constitution, can a court enforce a will or a trust deed which discriminates against potential beneficiaries on account of their race, gender, religion or disability? Will such clause pass the test of constitutionality, be justified or considered to achieve a legitimate objective? Can potential beneficiaries or anyone who has locus standi challenge the freedom of testation by relying on the freedoms and rights entrenched in the Bill of Rights? It is against this background that the paper attempts to answer these questions and explore the extent to which the Constitution has an impact on freedom of testation. The central thesis of the article is to determine whether clauses in wills or trust instruments which differentiate between different classes of beneficiary can be deemed to be valid. This is done by looking at several more recent cases that have appeared before our courts.

scholarly journals Inheritance Rights for Posthumously Procreated Children: A Growing Challenge for the Law

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 ◽  
pp. 1-30
Author(s):  
Frederick Noel Zaal ◽  
Justin D'Almaine
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
South African ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Artificial Reproduction ◽  
Cryogenic Technology ◽  
Laboratory Conditions ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Human Gametes

Significant advances in cryogenic technology render it possible to freeze and store human gametes. Under appropriate laboratory conditions frozen gametes can remain viable for long periods of time. In consequence, it is possible for a child to be conceived and procreated after the death of one or both parents. This raises some challenging juristic problems. Amongst these are implications for the law of inheritance. Where a valid will expressly refers to a child who will be procreated after the testator's death, the child's right to inherit will be secured. However, where a will merely refers to children as a class, or with intestate succession, it becomes uncertain whether a posthumously procreated child has a right to inherit. South African legislation governing succession, the common law and the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 all fail to provide definitive answers. Because of this and as the numbers of posthumously procreated children are likely to increase as artificial reproduction services become more widely available, there is a need for South African legislation to clarify their inheritance rights.

The oath in labour arbitrations: Critiquing an arbitrator’s prerogative to swear in witnesses

2021 ◽  
Vol 138 (4) ◽  
pp. 844-880
Author(s):  
Dennis Matlou
Keyword(s):  
South African ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Law System ◽  
The Common ◽  
Common Law System ◽  
The Law ◽  
Court Proceedings ◽  
Law Of Evidence

Can the oath, affirmation, or admonishment really be selectively administered on some witnesses but not on others? Sworn testimony is one of the most important features of the law of evidence. It is central not only to the continental system of law but also the common-law system on which our South African law of evidence is based. Witnesses testifying in formal court proceedings are required by statute law to swear an oath or make an affirmation or be admonished as to the truth of their testimony. But why is the same requirement not obligatory in statutory labour tribunals, where presiding officers have the prerogative to decide if they require witnesses to be sworn in prior to testifying? In this article, I criticise this prerogative for being ill-conceived, and advocate for its amendment.

“Farewell to Unjustified Enrichment?” – A Common Law Response

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 326-337
Author(s):  
Steve Hedley
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
German Law ◽  
Unjust Enrichment ◽  
Level Of Abstraction ◽  
The Law ◽  
Unjustified Enrichment ◽  
High Level ◽  
Logical Process

In this article, Professor Steve Hedley offers a Common Law response to he recently published arguments of Professor Nils Jansen on the German law of unjustified enrichment (as to which, see Jansen, “Farewell to Unjustified Enrichment” (2016) 20 EdinLR 123). The author takes the view that Jansen's paper provided a welcome opportunity to reconsider not merely what unjust enrichment can logically be, but what it is for. He argues that unjust enrichment talk contributes little of value, and that the supposedly logical process of stating it at a high level of abstraction, and then seeking to deduce the law from that abstraction, merely distracts lawyers from the equities of the cases they consider.

The Africanisation Of South African Civil Procedure: The Way Forward

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fawzia Cassim ◽  
Nomulelo Queen Mabeka
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Procedure ◽  
African Culture ◽  
Legal Proceedings ◽  
Seventeenth Amendment ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Lower Courts ◽  
The Law ◽  
Court Proceedings ◽  
The Impact

Civil procedure enforces the rules and provisions of civil law.  The law of civil procedure involves the issuing, service and filing of documents to initiate court proceedings in the superior courts and lower courts. Indeed, notice of legal proceedings is given to every person to ensure compliance with the audi alteram partem maxim (“hear the other side”). There are various rules and legislation that regulate these court proceedings such as inter alia, the Superior Courts Act, 2013, Uniform Rules of Court, Constitution Seventeenth Amendment Act, 2012 and the Magistrates’ Courts Act of 1944. The rules of court are binding on a court by virtue of their nature.  The purpose of these rules is to facilitate inexpensive and efficient legislation. However, civil procedure does not only depend on statutory provisions and the rules of court.  Common law also plays a role. Superior Courts are said to exercise inherent jurisdiction in that its jurisdiction is derived from common law.  It is noteworthy that whilst our rules of court and statutes are largely based on the English law, Roman-Dutch law also has an impact on our procedural law. The question thus arises, how can our law of civil procedure transform to accommodate elements of Africanisation as we are part and parcel of the African continent/diaspora? In this regard, the article examines the origins of Western-based civil procedure, our formal court systems, the impact of the Constitution on traditional civil procedure, the use of dispute resolution mechanisms in Western legal systems and African culture, an overview of the Traditional Courts Bill of 2012 and the advent of the Traditional Courts Bill of 2017. The article also examines how the contentious Traditional Courts Bills of 2012 and 2017 will transform or complement the law of civil procedure and apply in practice once it is passed into law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document