La notion d’opposabilité, dégagée par la doctrine française au début du siècle dernier, revêt aujourd’hui une importance cruciale relativement à la sécurité juridique. Ainsi, il est communément admis par la doctrine moderne qu’un tel concept explique les effets non obligatoires des contrats à l’égard du tiers, et notamment en matière de responsabilité. D’une part, le tiers est tenu d’un devoir d’abstention concernant tout acte qui pourrait porter atteinte aux contrats d’autrui. Le cas échéant, les contractants peuvent demander la réparation du dommage qu’ils subissent du fait de la convention conclue par le tiers au mépris de leurs droits. D’autre part, et parallèlement, le tiers victime est en droit d’engager la responsabilité délictuelle du cocontractant auteur de l’inexécution contractuelle lui ayant été préjudiciable. Pour autant, le nombre d’auteurs pour qui l’opposabilité ne peut pas réellement servir d’appui aux deux règles précitées ne cesse de s’accroître. La critique n’est pas cependant pleinement justifiée. En effet, l’étude approfondie de la signification exacte, du fondement et des caractéristiques déterminantes de l’opposabilité démontre que, moyennant une juste délimitation de son champ d’application, cette notion demeure utile, pour ne pas dire indispensable à la protection des contractants et des tiers. / The notion of opposability, which appeared in French doctrine at the beginning of the last century, is of crucial importance today in relation to legal certainty. Thus, it is generally accepted in contemporary doctrine that such a concept explains the non-obligatory effects of contracts towards third parties and particularly in regard to responsibility. On the one hand, third parties must abstain from any act which may harm others' contracts. If this should occur, parties to the contract could claim compensation for any damage suffered as the result of a convention under taken by a third party without regard to their rights. On the other hand, and in parallel, a third-party victim is entitled to make a tort claim against a cocontracting party failed to fulfill a contractual obligation when this would be prejudicial tohim. Having said that, there is an ever-increasing number of authors for whom opposability cannot be used to support the two preceding rules. However, this criticism is notcompletely justified. Indeed, an in-depth study of the exact meaning, of the basis and of the determining characteristics of opposability show that, given a fair definition of the boundaries, this notion remains useful, if not indispensable to protect parties to a contract and third parties.

Le contexte de la rupture du couple, qu’il soit marié, uni par un pacte civil de solidarité, fiancé ou en concubinage, est un moment propice à la lésion des intérêts de ses membres. La question de la réparation des préjudices subis surgit alors, et la tentation est grande d’en imputer la responsabilité à l’autre membre du couple, surtout s’il est à l’origine de la rupture. Le droit commun de la responsabilité civile délictuelle, fondé sur l’article 1382 du Code civil, est une voie empruntable par chacun pour obtenir réparation ; demeurait la question de son adaptation à la matière. L’analyse des décisions qui le mettent en application à un cas de rupture de couple révèle une tendance nette, celle de l’utilisation à titre de sanction d’un mécanisme en principe réparateur. Cette résistance jurisprudentielle au mouvement d’objectivation et à la neutralité croissante du législateur dans l’organisation des rapports de couple se devait d’être précisée et expliquée. La présente étude vérifie, d’abord, la réalité du phénomène : l’article 1382 du Code civil est utilisé comme peine privée, ce qui met en avant la fonction répressive de la responsabilité civile. Elle s’attache ensuite à déterminer les valeurs que le juge cherche à protéger par la mise en œuvre de cette sanction. Au-delà de la diversité des comportements sanctionnés, c’est le travail d’équilibre réalisé par le juge entre droit à réparation et liberté de rupture que la thèse vise à souligner / The context of a couple’s break-up, whether they are married, in a civil partnership, engaged or cohabiting, is conducive to prejudice the respective interests of either person in the couple. As the issue of compensation for damages emerges, the temptation is to blame the other person, especially when this one can be regarded as the cause of the break-up. An action can be brought on the basis of tort liability in the section 1382 of the French civil Code. The question of its implementation was still open. A detailed analysis of the case-law shows that this legal basis, which is supposed to award compensation, is actually used as a punishment. This resistance to the development of objectification and to the increasing legal neutrality in the organization of the couple’s relationships had to be clarified and explained. The first objective of the study was to grasp the reality of the phenomenon : tort liability is used as a “private penalty”, which highlights its repressive function. The second purpose was to determine the values that judges are trying to protect through this particular way of application of the law. Beyond the diversity of sanctioned behaviours, the thesis aims at bringing out the role of judges in finding a right way between the right to compensation and the freedom to break-up.

From the Proceedings of the 1972 Meetings of the Arizona Section - American Water Resources Assn. and the Hydrology Section - Arizona Academy of Science - May 5-6, 1972, Prescott, Arizona / Pressure is being brought to bear on national resources of air, earth, and water in the growing cities in the arid southwest. Legal questions involved in capturing urban runoff and putting it to a beneficial use are examined. Urbanization of a watershed results in a 3 to 5 fold increase in runoff amounts. Legal aspects include tort liability from floods, water rights to the increased flows, land use restrictions along banks and flood plains, condemnation of land for park development and flowage easements, financing problems, zoning applications, and coordination of governmental bodies responsible for parks, storm drainage and related services. Urban runoff is the most obvious legal problem in the tort liability area. It appears feasible to divert small quantities of water from urban wastes for recreational uses which provide flood control benefits. It appears that municipalities could appropriate increased flows caused by urbanization. The ultimate legal questions remain to be resolved by legislation, litigation or extension of the appropriative system.

Jurisprudence / LL. D.

South Africa has been experiencing a number of violent strikes by trade unions in recent times. The issue is not only to hold unions liable for damage caused during strikes, but also to reduce the number of violent strikes. This study investigates if victims of such violence can hold trade unions liable for the violent acts committed by their members during industrial action. The Labour Relations Act, 66 of 1995 (LRA) makes provision for the dismissal of employees who commit misconduct during an unprotected strike. It also provides the remedy of an interdict and a claim for just and equitable compensation which can be made against the union, during an unprotected strike. It is further possible to hold the union together with its members liable for damages in terms of the Regulation of Gatherings Act, 205 of 1993 (RGA). The study argues that a strike or conduct in furtherance of a strike that becomes violent could lose protection and the trade union should consequently be held liable, in terms of the LRA and/ or the RGA, for damages caused by its members. This study investigates the position in Canada, Botswana and Australia to determine if there could be any other basis upon which to hold trade union liable for the conduct of its members. The study recommends that the common law doctrine of vicarious liability should be developed by the courts to allow trade unions to be held liable for damages caused by members during violent industrial action. Policy considerations and changing economic conditions and the nature of strikes in the Republic favours the expansion of the doctrine of vicarious liability to trade union member relationship. / Mercantile Law / LL. D.

Copyright law is a special category of civil law which, with the upswing of the Internet, has become important for different types of stakeholders in the global information society. The 'participative web' operates with content generated by users. This user-generated content has often disputable origins in terms of copyright clearance. The Internet has opened the possibility for developing new forms of communication between anonymous or individual users who are not easily identifiable. Especially peer-to-peer file sharing and recently the information services offered and operated by the so-called 'cyberlockers' are the reason of questioning the role of copyright protection online which needs a beneficial solution. Copyright infringement in the era of information society is a complex phenomenon with a multiplicity of contributing factors like the importance of information data with big business potential, personal attitudes shown by internet users towards the value and scarcity of intellectual property, or legal responsibility of internet service providers (ISP) who paradoxically act from the safety of the so-called safe harbours as intermediaries of information exchange, representing a new element in the communication chain between rights holders and users. Commercial and business models operating...