Aantekeninge: Verblyfvergunning is nie outomaties habitatio nie en totale skade omvat skade gely weens inbreuk op die eiser se vervullingsbelang

According to the headnote attached to the most recent decision under discussion, the litigation turned on the quantification of the total loss suffered by M as alleged holder of a right of habitatio after S as reputed owner of the farm revoked the verbal agreement between the parties entitling M to occupy the dwelling ad infinitum on condition that he renovates the dwelling to a habitable state. Notwithstanding the conviction of the judges involved, it is clear that at no stage were any of the requirements for the acquisition or vesting of a limited real right of habitatio complied with. No limited real right was registered against the farm and S as the alleged grantor of the limited real right was at no stage the owner of the property. He could not have been entitled to burden the property of another with such limited real right. A contractual arrangement between the parties, however, did exist granting the claimant an entitlement to occupy the dwelling. The initially friendly relations between the litigants soured abruptly in February 2013 when S evicted M from the farm because of a supposed blasphemous comment by M. This happened after the claimant had already invested significantly in the restoration and modernisation of the old dilapidated dwelling. “The plaintiff regarded this as a repudiation of the contract between him and the defendant, accepted it as such and left the farm, effectively halting the renovation project” (par 14 read with par 5.4 of the 2016-decision). His claim for compensation of the loss suffered was held by the court to be limited to the amounts reflected in the receipts representing the cost of building material when it was acquired. It is submitted that the court should also have taken note of the loss suffered as positive interest, because the claimant forfeited the calculated benefit of life-long free occupation in the restored dwelling. Because of the underlying agreement between the parties to the litigation, the patrimonial benefit that accrued to the estate of the owner of the farm due to the objective rules of accessio cannot be classified as actionable unjustified enrichment. The principles of unjustified enrichment do not apply – the resulting detriment or loss of M was cum causa and not sine causa. The remarks of the court pointing to unjustified enrichment do not convince. Damages should have been calculated to cover the loss in positive interest of the claimant and not merely his negative interest, ie the amounts paid for the building material used in the renovation. The court, however, held: “I’m satisfied that the plaintiff has adduced sufficient evidence to prove his claim for the costs of renovating the farmhouse on a balance of probabilities” (par 23). The last mentioned mode of quantification of the loss suffered would have been more in place where merely a delict was involved, as eg where the damaged motor vehicle should be repaired to the state it was in before the accident occurred. Had the judges in this case done a correct assessment of loss upon cancellation for breach of contract, it would have led to a respect of the rule of law and would not have been to the detriment of the claimant. The legal principles that should have been applied had already been clearly formulated more than a century ago: “The sufferer by such a breach should be placed in the position he would have occupied had the contract been performed, so far as that can be done by the payment of money, and without undue hardship to the defaulting party …” Victoria Falls & Transvaal Power Co Ltd v Consolidated Langlaagte Mines Ltd (1915 AD 1 22).

Datio ob rem and datio ob causam – the purpose of performance in Roman law

Summary This paper deals with one of the most important unjustified enrichment claims in Roman law, the condictio causa data causa non secuta concentrating on the crucial issue of the purpose of performance. In Roman law the purpose of performance was denoted by the term res as a part of datio ob rem (giving for a purpose) or causa as a part of datio ob causam (giving on a basis); however, in the secondary literature there is a dispute over the exact meaning of those terms and their mutual relationship. Some scholars identify res with the counter-performance which was expected from the recipient. Others consider this interpretation of res as too narrow, because datio ob rem was applied not only where the giver expected counter-performance but also when he tried to achieve other goals, including that not associated with the recipient’s behaviour at all. In order to find a solution to that long-lasting dispute the article analyses typical examples of cases described in the sources as datio ob rem or datio ob causam.

A Casebook on the Roman Law of Contracts

This Casebook explores the writings of Roman lawyers on the law of contracts, a rich and hugely influential area of Roman private law. The 235 “Cases” are actual texts deriving, for the most part, from the Digest of Justinian (535 ce), but written hundreds of years earlier during the Classical era of Roman law. These Cases give a fairly complete view of the concepts and methods used to create rules and judge contract cases in Roman courts. The Casebook concentrates especially on two central Roman contracts, stipulation and sale; but all other contracts and contract-related issues are discussed, as well as Roman legal thinking on unjustified enrichment.

Quasi-Contract

The jurists recognized that there were some situations in which a contract-like set of duties and obligations arose from circumstances involving no agreement between the parties. The two most influential forms of such “quasi-contract” are unauthorized administration of affairs (negotiorum gestio) and what is now called unjustified enrichment (actionable through the condictio). Although this body of law remained somewhat underdeveloped, it contains many important insights into Roman concepts of obligation. Particularly for unjustified enrichment, the jurists clarified when a benefit conferred upon one person at another’s expense can be reclaimed on the basis that the recipient has no legitimate basis for retaining the benefit.

Filling in the Gaps

The Roman system of contracts left out of account many agreements that deserved enforcement, especially in a developed economy. The jurists clearly recognized the limits of their system, in particular the sometimes obscure boundaries of recognized contracts and the difficulty in recognizing new ones. For agreements that could not be accommodated, they eventually developed a rather awkward mechanism whereby, in principle, a contractual promise only became enforceable after one party performed its side, after which it could demand that the other party either carry out its promise or provide restitution of unjustified enrichment. This mechanism provides relief, but is obviously imperfect. Still, the jurists were at least willing to carry over from the recognized contracts some implied rights and duties.

La naturaleza jurídica y caracteres de la acción del artículo 669 inciso 1° del Código Civil chileno

In the present work the legal nature of the action established on article 669 paragraph 1° of the Chilean Civil Code is explored; even though it seems to be agreement as to what a restitutionary reimbursement is, this is not asserted enough, which generates difficulties at the judicial level. Indeed, concerning the action of reimbursement granted by article 669 paragraph 1°, no distinction has been drawn between the restitutionary and compensatory character of the norm. Having an unduly property allocation taken place, the principle of unjustified enrichment imposes the obligation of restituting, thus not being required a correlative impoverishment in order to claim the restitutionary reimbursement, since the action is not aimed at compensating the impoverished, but to recovered the unduly assigned enrichment, this way, regarding the studied action the stress muss shift from the amount of the impoverishment to the effective amount of the enrichment, so as not to apply the compensatory logic to the restitutionary reimbursement.

Zahtev za povraćaj ulaganja zbog prestanka ugovora o kupoprodaji, najmu i građenju

Rules on restitution for improvements made to someone else’s property can be found in various branches of Slovenian private law, such as the law of unjustified enrichment, negotiorum gestio, contract law and property law. Even though to some extent these rules deal with very similar situations, they differ in various aspects. While some of them are more favourable to the creditors in getting as much of their investment back as possible, others are more inclined toward protecting the debtor against forced financing of another’s economic decisions. This paper discusses some open dilemmas concerning restitution of improvements made to someone else’s property in Slovenian contract law. More precisely, it deals with restitutionary consequences of failed sales, lease and construction contracts and approaches this topic from a comparative perspective.

The The Legal Operation of Liens: Theory and Practice

The legal operation of liens has been the source of academic debates for many years. Liens are traditionally classified as enrichment liens and debtor-and-creditor liens (contractual liens). In the instance of an enrichment lien the creditor (lienholder) has a contract with a non-owner and not with the owner (debtor) himself. Consequently, the creditor can vest a lien against the owner of the thing only on the grounds of unjustified enrichment. Enrichment liens are classified as real rights. In the instance of a debtor-and-creditor lien (contractual lien) the creditor (lienholder) has a contract with the owner of the thing and the contract is the basis for the liability of the owner (debtor) towards the creditor. Debtor-and-creditor liens are generally classified as personal rights. This classification causes confusion regarding the legal operation on the one hand of an enrichment lien as a real right and on the other hand of a debtor-and-creditor lien (contractual lien) as a personal right. This paper proposes that the origin of the legal claim for which the lien serves as security (unjustified enrichment or contractual) merely determines the debt (expenses) for which a lienholder can vest his lien and does not determine the classification of a lien as either a real right or a personal right. A lien can be described as a defence against the owner's rei vindicatio and is, in principle, enforceable only against the owner of the thing (security object). A lien can, however, also be enforced against parties other than the owner, including the creditors (who, for example, want to attach the thing subject to the lien) of the owner (debtor) and other real claimants. The enforcement of a lien against these parties is referred to as the real operation (third-party action) of a lien. This paper analyses the legal operation of a lien with specific reference to the debt (expenses incurred) secured by the lien, the vesting (existence) of a lien, the real operation (third-party action) of a lien and the preferential position of a lienholder in the case of the debtor' insolvency.

The Application of Provisions on Common Property Division and Provisions on Obligations as a Result of Unjustified Enrichment in Disputes Between Spouses over Collection of a Part of Profit Distributed by a Limited Liability Company

The article deals with the issue of the rules applicable to resolving disputes between spouses on recovery of a part of the distributed profit of a limited liability company received by a spouse — a participant in a limited liability company. It is concluded that the recovery of the spouse (ex-spouse) with spouse (ex-spouse), the shares of part of the distributed profit belonging to the common property, shall be in accordance with the norms of family law on the division of common property, and not the civil law on obligations due to unjust enrichment.