Global ETD Search

1	A critical appraisal of the decision in Sonap v Pappadogianis 1992 (3) SA 234 (A), with reference to the basis of contractual liability in South African law and various other legal systems Steyn, Lienne 11 1900 (has links) In Sonap Petroleum (formerly known as Sonarep) (SA) (Pty) Ltd v Pappadog1an1s 1992 (3) SA 234 (A) the Appellate Division apparently approved the direct application of the reliance theory, without reference to prejudice or fault, to determine contractual liability in the absence of consensus. The various approaches to contractual liability in South African law are examined, and a comparative study of English law and the law of the Netherlands is conducted. It is submitted that the element of fault is not crucial to the enquiry, but rather, the elements of conduct , inducement and a reasonable reliance upon consensus. It is concluded that the test for contractual liability in the absence of actual consensus, as formula ted by the court in Sonap's case, without reference to prejudice or fault, has established sound precedent in South African law. / Criminal and Procedural Law / LL.M. Consensual (intention) theory Declaration theory Estoppel by representation Iustus error Misrepresentation Mistake Objective principle Reliance theory Risk principle Reasonable reliance 346.22 Breach of contract Fraud Consensual (Intention) theory Reasonable reliance Estoppel by representation Reliance theory Risk principle
2	A critical appraisal of the decision in Sonap v Pappadogianis 1992 (3) SA 234 (A), with reference to the basis of contractual liability in South African law and various other legal systems Steyn, Lienne 11 1900 (has links) In Sonap Petroleum (formerly known as Sonarep) (SA) (Pty) Ltd v Pappadog1an1s 1992 (3) SA 234 (A) the Appellate Division apparently approved the direct application of the reliance theory, without reference to prejudice or fault, to determine contractual liability in the absence of consensus. The various approaches to contractual liability in South African law are examined, and a comparative study of English law and the law of the Netherlands is conducted. It is submitted that the element of fault is not crucial to the enquiry, but rather, the elements of conduct , inducement and a reasonable reliance upon consensus. It is concluded that the test for contractual liability in the absence of actual consensus, as formula ted by the court in Sonap's case, without reference to prejudice or fault, has established sound precedent in South African law. / Criminal and Procedural Law / LL.M. Consensual (intention) theory Declaration theory Estoppel by representation Iustus error Misrepresentation Mistake Objective principle Reliance theory Risk principle Reasonable reliance 346.22 Breach of contract Fraud Consensual (Intention) theory Reasonable reliance Estoppel by representation Reliance theory Risk principle
3	Reliance protection as the basis of contractual liability Jethro, Paul John Daniel 11 1900 (has links) It is traditionally accepted that the basis of contractual liability is either consensus, that is the actual meeting of the minds of the contractants, or the reasonable belief by one contractants that there is consensus. In this paper the various approaches to contractual liability are examined. The conclusion that is reached is that the direct application of reliance protecti~n can -effectively serve as the basis of contractual liability in our law today. It is submitted that the elements to found contractual liability are representation or conduct, unducement; a reasonable reliance upon consensus, and detriment or prejudice. It is forcefully argued that although blameworthiness (fault) may play a substantial role in determining whether reliance upon consensus should be protected, it is not the decisive element to the enquiry: rather regard should be had to all the surrounding circumstances relating to the contractual relationship. / Private Law / LL.M. Consensual (will / intention theory) Declaration theory Detriment Estoppel by representation Fault Iustus error Mistake Objective approach Reliance theory/protection Risk principle Reasonable reliance 346.2 Consensual (Intention) theory Reasonable reliance Estoppel by representation Risk principle
4	Reliance protection as the basis of contractual liability Jethro, Paul John Daniel 11 1900 (has links) It is traditionally accepted that the basis of contractual liability is either consensus, that is the actual meeting of the minds of the contractants, or the reasonable belief by one contractants that there is consensus. In this paper the various approaches to contractual liability are examined. The conclusion that is reached is that the direct application of reliance protecti~n can -effectively serve as the basis of contractual liability in our law today. It is submitted that the elements to found contractual liability are representation or conduct, unducement; a reasonable reliance upon consensus, and detriment or prejudice. It is forcefully argued that although blameworthiness (fault) may play a substantial role in determining whether reliance upon consensus should be protected, it is not the decisive element to the enquiry: rather regard should be had to all the surrounding circumstances relating to the contractual relationship. / Private Law / LL.M. Consensual (will / intention theory) Declaration theory Detriment Estoppel by representation Fault Iustus error Mistake Objective approach Reliance theory/protection Risk principle Reasonable reliance 346.2 Consensual (Intention) theory Reasonable reliance Estoppel by representation Risk principle

1

Page generated in 0.1517 seconds