The Condictio Indebiti and Unjust Factors (1)
- Authors: Glover, Graham B
- Date: 2006
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/186869 , vital:44541 , xlink:href="file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/69THRHR419%20(2).pdf"
- Description: Since the Supreme Court of Appeal has continued to avoid taking the step of recognising a general enrichment action,' the traditional enrichment actions of the common law remain fundamentally important to the operation of the law of unjustified enrichment in South Africa. Most significant of these is the condictio indebiti, which is probably the most well-known and liberally utilised enrichment action in South African law.2 In this article, the nature and scope of this condictio will be examined, and it will be shown that it has grown beyond its notionally traditional role of reversing payments or transfers made unjustifiably by mistake, to include causes of action in duress and protest. The implications of this for the condictio, as well as for the foundations of our enrichment law will then be examined, with reference to the two leading schools of enrichment law: the civilian school, typified by German law, and the common-law school, typified by English law.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2006
- Authors: Glover, Graham B
- Date: 2006
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/186869 , vital:44541 , xlink:href="file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/69THRHR419%20(2).pdf"
- Description: Since the Supreme Court of Appeal has continued to avoid taking the step of recognising a general enrichment action,' the traditional enrichment actions of the common law remain fundamentally important to the operation of the law of unjustified enrichment in South Africa. Most significant of these is the condictio indebiti, which is probably the most well-known and liberally utilised enrichment action in South African law.2 In this article, the nature and scope of this condictio will be examined, and it will be shown that it has grown beyond its notionally traditional role of reversing payments or transfers made unjustifiably by mistake, to include causes of action in duress and protest. The implications of this for the condictio, as well as for the foundations of our enrichment law will then be examined, with reference to the two leading schools of enrichment law: the civilian school, typified by German law, and the common-law school, typified by English law.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2006
The Condictio Indebiti and Unjust Factors (2)
- Authors: Glover, Graham B
- Date: 2006
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/186880 , vital:44544 , xlink:href="///C:/Users/User/Downloads/69THRHR561%20(1).pdf"
- Description: Since the Supreme Court of Appeal has continued to avoid taking the step of recognising a general enrichment action,' the traditional enrichment actions of the common law remain fundamentally important to the operation of the law of unjustified enrichment in South Africa. Most significant of these is the condictio indebiti, which is probably the most well-known and liberally utilised enrichment action in South African law.2 In this article, the nature and scope of this condictio will be examined, and it will be shown that it has grown beyond its notionally traditional role of reversing payments or transfers made unjustifiably by mistake, to include causes of action in duress and protest. The implications of this for the condictio, as well as for the foundations of our enrichment law will then be examined, with reference to the two leading schools of enrichment law: the civilian school, typified by German law, and the common-law school, typified by English law.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2006
- Authors: Glover, Graham B
- Date: 2006
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/186880 , vital:44544 , xlink:href="///C:/Users/User/Downloads/69THRHR561%20(1).pdf"
- Description: Since the Supreme Court of Appeal has continued to avoid taking the step of recognising a general enrichment action,' the traditional enrichment actions of the common law remain fundamentally important to the operation of the law of unjustified enrichment in South Africa. Most significant of these is the condictio indebiti, which is probably the most well-known and liberally utilised enrichment action in South African law.2 In this article, the nature and scope of this condictio will be examined, and it will be shown that it has grown beyond its notionally traditional role of reversing payments or transfers made unjustifiably by mistake, to include causes of action in duress and protest. The implications of this for the condictio, as well as for the foundations of our enrichment law will then be examined, with reference to the two leading schools of enrichment law: the civilian school, typified by German law, and the common-law school, typified by English law.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2006
The sharing of pension benefits on divorce: An inevitable affair?
- Authors: Glover, Graham B
- Date: 2006
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/186723 , vital:44528 , xlink:href="Print only"
- Description: One of the invariable consequences of divorce is that the patrimonial assets of the marriage have to be divided up between the two parties. At a primary level, the way in which this will occur will be determined by a number of factors: the matrimonial property regime under which the parties had been married; the relevant provisions of the Divorce Act (Act 70 of 1979) that deal with the question of the patrimonial consequences of divorce; as well as any agreement on this often ticklish matter that can be reached by the parties prior to the divorce action. Approximately fourteen years ago, section 7 of the Divorce Act was amended to allow a divorced spouse to share in the pension interests of the other spouse. There is some polemic, though, as to the interpretation of this provision: in particular, it is not clear whether this pension benefit will automatically form part of the assets that are susceptible to division, or whether a prayer to this effect must specifically be sought. After a consideration of the current legal position regarding the sharing of pension benefits generally, this note will examine this specific debate.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2006
- Authors: Glover, Graham B
- Date: 2006
- Subjects: To be catalogued
- Language: English
- Type: text , article
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10962/186723 , vital:44528 , xlink:href="Print only"
- Description: One of the invariable consequences of divorce is that the patrimonial assets of the marriage have to be divided up between the two parties. At a primary level, the way in which this will occur will be determined by a number of factors: the matrimonial property regime under which the parties had been married; the relevant provisions of the Divorce Act (Act 70 of 1979) that deal with the question of the patrimonial consequences of divorce; as well as any agreement on this often ticklish matter that can be reached by the parties prior to the divorce action. Approximately fourteen years ago, section 7 of the Divorce Act was amended to allow a divorced spouse to share in the pension interests of the other spouse. There is some polemic, though, as to the interpretation of this provision: in particular, it is not clear whether this pension benefit will automatically form part of the assets that are susceptible to division, or whether a prayer to this effect must specifically be sought. After a consideration of the current legal position regarding the sharing of pension benefits generally, this note will examine this specific debate.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2006
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »