This thesis explores the question how unilateral conduct can create, vary or discharge obligations in English private law and how unilateral conduct is regulated. First, it is explained that the reason for asking this question follows from the candidate’s background in a civil law jurisdiction, in which unilateral juridical acts are regarded a category of legally relevant behaviour. After observing the obstacles in English law to the recognition of the civil law concept of unilateral juridical acts, a number of examples of unilateral conduct are identified that create legal effect. The focus of the thesis is on examples of unilateral conduct that create, vary or discharge obligations. English law allows the creation of obligations by unilateral conduct only in very specific instances. It is observed that unilateral conduct can create or transfer property rights. The different approach is explained primarily by deeply rooted distinction in English law between words and acts. Subsequently, the thesis discusses how unilateral conduct is regulated. For some issues, notably interpretation, revocability and the intention to create legal effect, similar rules apply to the different examples of unilateral conduct. For other issues, especially mistake and form requirements, the rules diverge. It is concluded that unilateral conduct forms a category of legally relevant behaviour in English law. This category is divided in unilateral conduct that creates obligations, quasi-contractual unilateral conduct that varies or discharges obligations and unilateral voluntary property transactions. Whereas quasi-contractual unilateral conduct is closely related to contracts and should thus generally be regulated in a manner similar to contracts, the unilateral voluntary property transaction is a distinct concept, to which specific rules apply.

Proefschrift--Amsterdam. / Bibliography: p. 311-327.

Thesis (doctoral)--Vrije Universiteit te Amsterdam, 1989. / Summary in Dutch. Includes bibliographical references and index.

Thesis (LLD) -- Stellenbosch University, 1971. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: see item for full text AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: sien item vir volteks.

The diploma thesis is focused on the duty of loyalty of shareholders (members). Although some legal experts consider this duty as a basis of any private law relations, duty of loyalty remains mainly overlooked in the business law area. Firstly, the diploma thesis explores the duty in broader view and describes its functioning in other countries, where duty of loyalty is traditionally respected: United States of America and Germany. The thesis continues to the development of the duty of loyalty in Czech Republic. Before 2014, this duty was not explicitly included in Czech law or no wide consensus about the legal source of this duty. The loyalty principle has begun to be recognized in 2006, when legal experts started to work with this term and set theoretical basis for this duty. Even if there was no consensus about the scope and range of the duty of loyalty and the existence of this duty itself, the duty of loyalty has been established in the judicature of Czech courts. Even Supreme and Constitutional Courts accepted this duty in its decisions. The role of Judicature for the duty of loyalty and its contend is significant. The change of Czech private law has brought substantial changes of this duty. From the 1st January 2014, the duty of loyalty is explicitly part of the Czech law and may be found in...

Text in Afrikaans / This thesis deals with the nature and operation of liens in South African law. Whereas enrichment liens are classified as real rights, debtor creditor liens are not (sometimes they are referred to as personal rights). The South African law of lien is principally founded on Roman Dutch law and is similar to Dutch law before the enactment of the current Burgerlijk Wetboek (BW). In Dutch law the BW specifies which persons have a lien and under what circumstances. In South African law a creditor can establish a lien against an owner who has a duty to perform in terms of an agreement between the parties or, in the absence of such an agreement, on the basis of unjustified enrichment. My research has shown that a lien is not a subjective right but a capacity vested in a creditor by operation of law. It empowers him to retain an owner’s (debtor) thing until the creditor’s claim against him has been discharged. Extra-judicially the lien holder can rely on his lien or he can raise it as a defence against the owner’s rei vindicatio. The categorisation of liens as either enrichment liens, or debtor creditor liens is at the most an indication of the different sources of the creditor’s right to which the lien is accessory. In Dutch law liens are classified as verhaalsrechten on the owner’s estate. These rights (verhaalsrechten) are further classified as specific opschortingsrechten. A lien is therefore a capacity granted to certain creditors by law to retain an owner’s (debtor) thing. Regarding the operation of liens against third parties (derdenwerking), Dutch law distinguishes between a third party with an older right to the thing and a third party with a later right to the thing. In South African case law derdewerking (real operation) of liens is often used to explain the fact that the lienholder may, in the absence of an agreement with the owner, retain the owner’s thing until his claim against the owner has been discharged. In South African law a lien is a defence to the owner’s rei vindicatio. Reliance on real operation (derdewerking) is often a means of explaining that a lien exists against an owner with whom the creditor had no agreement. Real operation, however, refers to the question against whom other than the owner the lien may be enforced once its existence has been established. A lien can be enforced against the creditors of the owner (debtor), the curator of the debtor’s insolvent estate, heirs, mortgagees and servitude holders. In Dutch law the BW grants preference to liens. Owing to the particular provisions of the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936 liens in South African law enjoy preference above other secured creditors of the insolvent owner (debtor). / Hierdie proefskrif handel oor die aard en werking van retensieregte in die Suid- Afrikaanse reg. Verrykingsretensieregte word algemeen as saaklike regte bestempel en skuldeiser-skuldenaar-retensieregte nie. Laasgenoemde word soms as persoonlike regte tipeer. Die Suid-Afrikaanse reg insake retensieregte is hoofsaaklik op die Romeins-Hollandse reg geskoei en stem in ‘n groot mate ooreen met die posisie in die Nederlandse reg voor die inwerkingtreding van die huidige Burgerlijk Wetboek (BW). In die Nederlandse reg bepaal die BW uitdruklik watter persone in watter omstandighede ‘n retensiereg het. In die Suid-Afrikaanse reg kan ‘n skuldeiser ‘n retensiereg vestig teen ‘n eienaar wat prestasiepligtig is op grond van ‘n ooreenkoms met die skuldeiser of, in die afwesigheid van ‘n ooreenkoms, op grond van verryking. My navorsing toon dat ‘n retensiereg nie ‘n subjektiewe reg is nie, maar ‘n terughoudingsbevoegdheid wat deur regswerking totstandkom. Dit stel die skuldeiser in staat om die eienaar (skuldenaar) se saak te hou totdat die eienaar voldoen aan die vorderingsreg wat die skuldeiser teen hom het. Die retensiereghouer kan buitegeregtelik daarop steun, of dit as ‘n verweer teen die eienaar se rei vindicatio aanwend. Die kategorisering van retensieregte in skuldeiser-skuldenaar-retensieregte en verrykingsretensieregte is hoogstens aanduidend van die verskillende ontstaansbronne van die vorderingsreg waartoe die retensiereg aksessoor is. In die Nederlandse reg word retensieregte in die BW as verhaalsregte op die eienaar se boedel geklassifiseer. Hierdie verhaalsregte word uitdruklik as besondere opskortingsregte getipeer. ‘n Retensiereg is dus ‘n terughoudingsbevoegdheid wat deur die objektiewe reg aan sekere skuldeisers verleen word. Ten aansien van die derdewerking van retensieregte tref die Nederlandse reg ‘n onderskeid tussen ‘n derde met ‘n later reg op die saak en ‘n derde met ‘n ouer reg op die saak. In die Suid-Afrikaanse regspraak word “derdewerking” dikwels aangewend om te verklaar waarom die retensiereghouer ‘n eienaar se saak mag terughou totdat hy vergoed is vir uitgawes wat hy aan die eienaar se saak aangebring het, terwyl hy geen ooreenkoms met die eienaar gehad het nie. In die Suid-Afrikaanse reg is ‘n retensiereg ‘n verweer wat teen die eienaar se rei vindicatio geopper kan word. Die beroep op “derdewerking” is dus dikwels die kapstok om te bepaal of ‘n retensiereg teen die eienaar geopper kan word, terwyl dit eintlik verwys na die afdwingbaarheid van ‘n bestaande retensiereg teen ander persone as die eienaar. ‘n Retensiereg kan teen skuldeisers van die skuldenaar, die kurator van die skuldenaar se insolvente boedel, erfgename, verbandhouers en serwituutgeregtigdes afgedwing word. In die Nederlandse reg verleen die BW voorkeur aan retensieregte. Vanweë die besondere bepalings in die Insolvensiewet 24 van 1936 geniet retensieregte in die Suid-Afrikaanse reg ook voorkeur bo ander versekerde skuldeisers van die insolvente eienaar (skuldenaar). / Private Law / LL.D.

No description available.

Till följd av att Skatteverket hade uppmärksammat problematiken med skatteplanering med ränteavdrag, så kallade räntesnurror, infördes de första svenska ränteavdragsbegränsningsreglerna för koncerninterna lån för företag i intressegemenskap år 2009. Dessa regler var inspirerade av motsvarande ränteavdragsbegränsningsregler i Nederländerna. På grund av att skatteplaneringen fortsatte, utvidgades de svenska ränteavdragsbegränsningsreglernas tillämpningsområde år 2013. Det har dock visat sig att på grund av nuvarande utformning och tillämpningsområde av 2013 års svenska regler, medför reglerna både tillämpningsproblem och fortsatt skatteplanering. Denna uppsats syftar till att undersöka utfallet av att införa liknande regler som nederländska ränteavdragsbegränsningsregler i Sverige, i nuvarande svenska ränteavdragsbegränsningsreglers ställe, för att analysera vilket av dessa regelverk som bäst uppfyller ändamålet med de svenska ränteavdragsbegränsningsreglerna. Uppsatsen visar att det finns både likheter och skillnader, i såväl utformningen som i tilllämpningsområdet, mellan de svenska och de nederländska ränteavdragsbegränsningsreglerna. Det framgår av uppsatsen att skillnaderna inte i varje bestämmelse i det nederländska regelverket leder till en möjlig lösning på den kvarstående problematiken med de svenska ränteavdragsbegränsningsreglerna. Författaren anser att en blandad tillämpning av några nuvarande svenska bestämmelser och vissa bestämmelser lika de nederländska bäst skulle uppfylla ändamålet med de svenska ränteavdragsbegränsningsreglerna. / Due to the fact that the Swedish tax authority had paid attention to the issues concerning tax avoidance with the use of interest deduction, the first Swedish rules on interest deduction limitations on intra-group loans were introduced for associated companies in 2009. These rules were inspired by the equivalent Dutch rules on interest deduction limitations. Since the tax avoidance continued, the scope of the Swedish interest deduction limitation rules were extended in 2013. However, it has been shown that due to the formulation and the scope of the current Swedish rules, the legislation causes both interpretation issues and continuing tax avoidance. This thesis aims at examining the outcome of introducing similar rules as the Dutch interest deduction limitation rules in Sweden, instead of the current Swedish legislation, in order to analyze which of these legislations that better fulfills the purpose of the Swedish rules on interest deduction limitations. The thesis shows that there are both similarities as well as differences, with regards to both the formulation and the scope, between the Swedish and the Dutch rules on interest deduction limitations. It appears in the thesis that the differences in every provision of the Dutch legislation do not provide a possible solution to the remaining issues with the Swedish rules on interest deduction limitations. The author of the thesis considers a mixed application, containing some current Swedish provisions and some selected provisions similar to the Dutch provisions, to better fulfill the purpose of the Swedish rules on interest deduction limitations.

Text in Afrikaans / This thesis deals with the nature and operation of liens in South African law. Whereas enrichment liens are classified as real rights, debtor creditor liens are not (sometimes they are referred to as personal rights). The South African law of lien is principally founded on Roman Dutch law and is similar to Dutch law before the enactment of the current Burgerlijk Wetboek (BW). In Dutch law the BW specifies which persons have a lien and under what circumstances. In South African law a creditor can establish a lien against an owner who has a duty to perform in terms of an agreement between the parties or, in the absence of such an agreement, on the basis of unjustified enrichment. My research has shown that a lien is not a subjective right but a capacity vested in a creditor by operation of law. It empowers him to retain an owner’s (debtor) thing until the creditor’s claim against him has been discharged. Extra-judicially the lien holder can rely on his lien or he can raise it as a defence against the owner’s rei vindicatio. The categorisation of liens as either enrichment liens, or debtor creditor liens is at the most an indication of the different sources of the creditor’s right to which the lien is accessory. In Dutch law liens are classified as verhaalsrechten on the owner’s estate. These rights (verhaalsrechten) are further classified as specific opschortingsrechten. A lien is therefore a capacity granted to certain creditors by law to retain an owner’s (debtor) thing. Regarding the operation of liens against third parties (derdenwerking), Dutch law distinguishes between a third party with an older right to the thing and a third party with a later right to the thing. In South African case law derdewerking (real operation) of liens is often used to explain the fact that the lienholder may, in the absence of an agreement with the owner, retain the owner’s thing until his claim against the owner has been discharged. In South African law a lien is a defence to the owner’s rei vindicatio. Reliance on real operation (derdewerking) is often a means of explaining that a lien exists against an owner with whom the creditor had no agreement. Real operation, however, refers to the question against whom other than the owner the lien may be enforced once its existence has been established. A lien can be enforced against the creditors of the owner (debtor), the curator of the debtor’s insolvent estate, heirs, mortgagees and servitude holders. In Dutch law the BW grants preference to liens. Owing to the particular provisions of the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936 liens in South African law enjoy preference above other secured creditors of the insolvent owner (debtor). / Hierdie proefskrif handel oor die aard en werking van retensieregte in die Suid- Afrikaanse reg. Verrykingsretensieregte word algemeen as saaklike regte bestempel en skuldeiser-skuldenaar-retensieregte nie. Laasgenoemde word soms as persoonlike regte tipeer. Die Suid-Afrikaanse reg insake retensieregte is hoofsaaklik op die Romeins-Hollandse reg geskoei en stem in ‘n groot mate ooreen met die posisie in die Nederlandse reg voor die inwerkingtreding van die huidige Burgerlijk Wetboek (BW). In die Nederlandse reg bepaal die BW uitdruklik watter persone in watter omstandighede ‘n retensiereg het. In die Suid-Afrikaanse reg kan ‘n skuldeiser ‘n retensiereg vestig teen ‘n eienaar wat prestasiepligtig is op grond van ‘n ooreenkoms met die skuldeiser of, in die afwesigheid van ‘n ooreenkoms, op grond van verryking. My navorsing toon dat ‘n retensiereg nie ‘n subjektiewe reg is nie, maar ‘n terughoudingsbevoegdheid wat deur regswerking totstandkom. Dit stel die skuldeiser in staat om die eienaar (skuldenaar) se saak te hou totdat die eienaar voldoen aan die vorderingsreg wat die skuldeiser teen hom het. Die retensiereghouer kan buitegeregtelik daarop steun, of dit as ‘n verweer teen die eienaar se rei vindicatio aanwend. Die kategorisering van retensieregte in skuldeiser-skuldenaar-retensieregte en verrykingsretensieregte is hoogstens aanduidend van die verskillende ontstaansbronne van die vorderingsreg waartoe die retensiereg aksessoor is. In die Nederlandse reg word retensieregte in die BW as verhaalsregte op die eienaar se boedel geklassifiseer. Hierdie verhaalsregte word uitdruklik as besondere opskortingsregte getipeer. ‘n Retensiereg is dus ‘n terughoudingsbevoegdheid wat deur die objektiewe reg aan sekere skuldeisers verleen word. Ten aansien van die derdewerking van retensieregte tref die Nederlandse reg ‘n onderskeid tussen ‘n derde met ‘n later reg op die saak en ‘n derde met ‘n ouer reg op die saak. In die Suid-Afrikaanse regspraak word “derdewerking” dikwels aangewend om te verklaar waarom die retensiereghouer ‘n eienaar se saak mag terughou totdat hy vergoed is vir uitgawes wat hy aan die eienaar se saak aangebring het, terwyl hy geen ooreenkoms met die eienaar gehad het nie. In die Suid-Afrikaanse reg is ‘n retensiereg ‘n verweer wat teen die eienaar se rei vindicatio geopper kan word. Die beroep op “derdewerking” is dus dikwels die kapstok om te bepaal of ‘n retensiereg teen die eienaar geopper kan word, terwyl dit eintlik verwys na die afdwingbaarheid van ‘n bestaande retensiereg teen ander persone as die eienaar. ‘n Retensiereg kan teen skuldeisers van die skuldenaar, die kurator van die skuldenaar se insolvente boedel, erfgename, verbandhouers en serwituutgeregtigdes afgedwing word. In die Nederlandse reg verleen die BW voorkeur aan retensieregte. Vanweë die besondere bepalings in die Insolvensiewet 24 van 1936 geniet retensieregte in die Suid-Afrikaanse reg ook voorkeur bo ander versekerde skuldeisers van die insolvente eienaar (skuldenaar). / Private Law / LL.D.

This thesis is an analysis of the law of vicarious liability and its application within the legal framework of delict in South Africa. A brief overview of the historical development of this branch of law is given, with reference to the influences of Roman, Roman-Dutch and English law. That is followed by an exposition of the 'modem' interpretation of vicarious liability as applied in South African courts, highlighting apparent inconsistencies and the need for reform in what has become a persistently controversial area of law. Specific attention is paid to the so-called 'course and scope enquiry' and to the enduring difficulties associated with attributing liability to employers for the deliberate wrongful conduct of their employees. It is argued that the courts have yet to reach consensus on a general principle capable of being applied to the facts of so-called 'deviation cases', and that consequently the legal divergence on these matters gives rise to uncertainty and concern. It is submitted that the way in which the traditional test for vicarious liability is currently applied fails to give true effect to the policy considerations upon which this branch of law is founded. By way of comparison with the South African position, a detailed account of the law of vicarious liability in comparable foreign jurisdictions is given, with emphasis placed on recent developments in England and the British Commonwealth. The study then moves to an analysis of the various policy considerations behind vicarious liability, with particular attention being paid to the role of risk-related liability and the role of risk-assumption in the 'course and scope' enquiry. A comparative analysis follows, highlighting differences between the approaches of the foreign jurisdictions and that taken by the South African courts. The work concludes with a proposal that the South African courts should broaden the scope of vicarious liability and opt for a model similar to that which has recently been adopted in Canada.