No description available.

This research looks at the need and enforceability of legal warranties that companies include in contracts and/or public displays/notices to limit the company’s liability exposure to third parties. It also discusses the liability incurred by a company and that of its directors in their personal capacities (if any) should the legal warranty implemented be found to be unenforceable. The liability that may be incurred by the company and/or its director/s is dependent on whether the legal warranty which it implemented is enforceable or not and therefore it is important to establish what would constitute an enforceable legal warranty. In order to determine what is likely to constitute an enforceable legal warranty the study looks back at what has previously been deemed to constitute an unenforceable legal warranty. This is done by analysing the common law principles of contract, being the freedom to contract and the sanctity of contract, and its development in accordance with our constitutional dispensation through case law precedents. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 that apply to legal warranties are also analysed in order to determine the anticipated outcome of future case law where the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 may be applicable to a dispute involving legal warranties. Once what constitutes an unenforceable legal warranty is established, the study will discuss the legal position of a third party, and that of the company, where a third party has suffered damages as a result of the company’s acts or omissions and the company is unable to raise a legal warranty as a defence against such liability, as the legal warranty is found to be unenforceable. Thereafter the study will discuss the measures available to the company where the company is found liable to the third party for the aforementioned damages and the company wishes to mitigate its losses in this regard. Such measures shall include director insurance as well as the recovery of such liability against a director, in the director’s personal capacity, where the company either does not have director insurance or is unable to enforce the director insurance due to the actions of a director. In order to determine the director’s accountability to the company in this regard an assessment is made of the duties imposed on a director in terms of the common law and Companies Act 71 of 2008 to establish whether such duties are wide enough to include a duty on the director to ensure legal warranties he/she plays a part in implementing are enforceable. / Mercantile Law / LL. M. (Corporate Law)

The gas leak disaster in Bhopal, India, in 1984 illustrates a situation of catastrophe and mass torts resulting in loss of life and health as well as environmental degradation. The Indian company Union Carbide India Limited, who owned and operated the chemical plant that caused the disaster, did not have sufficient assets to compensate the victims in contrast to its financially well-equipped US parent company Union Carbide Corporation. The courts never reached a decision regarding parent company liability for the subsidiary’s debts arising from tort claims against the subsidiary. However, where the subsidiary cannot satisfy its tort creditors, as in the Bhopal case, questions regarding parent company liability become highly relevant in relation to both foreign and domestic subsidiaries. Therefore, parent company liability for subsidiaries’ torts is discussed in this thesis with reference to Swedish and UK company law and with a focus on the tort creditors’ situation and the business and human rights debate. From limited liability for shareholders and each company being a separate legal entity follows that a parent company is not liable for its subsidiaries’ debts in neither Swedish nor UK company law. These concepts serve the important function of facilitating risk-taking and entrepreneurial activities. However, they also contribute to the problem of uncompensated tort victims arising where a subsidiary is involved in liability- producing activities but lacks assets to compensate the tort victims. Where limited liability and each company being a separate legal entity leads to particularly inappropriate results, the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil in both Sweden and the UK allows the court to disregard the separate legal personalities and hold the parent company liable for its subsidiary’s acts or omissions. The doctrine is characterised by uncertainty and is seemingly only available under exceptional circumstances. The doctrine does little to mitigate the problems for subsidiaries’ tort creditors at large. The business and human rights debate calls for access to judicial remedies for victims of businesses’ human rights violations. As some human rights violations can form the basis of a tort claim, it is relevant to discuss parent company liability according to company law in relation to human rights violations. The United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights emphasise the need to ensure that corporate law does not prevent access to judicial remedies. However, the company law regulation of liability in company groups seems in practice to function as an obstacle for access to judicial remedies for human rights victims, particularly when also considering the inadequate legal regimes in some host states and the hurdles of jurisdiction and applicable law in multinational company groups. It is concluded in this thesis that the company law regulation of liability in company groups is seemingly not equipped to meet the challenges arising with the development of company groups, the global reach of the private business sector, the risks of mass torts and the influence of the business sector on human rights.