Thesis (LLM)--Stellenbosch University, 2004. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The problem of mistake and its impact on the formation of contract is a central issue in the
law of contract of all legal systems. The thesis investigates this area by considering the
manner in which it has been dealt with in Germany and South African law. Although both
legal systems are of the civilian origin. The German law is a codified system, whereas South
African law is an uncodified one in which in the absence of legislation, legal problems are
resolved by decisions of the High Court operating under a strict doctrine of legal precedent.
German law does not in a formal sense acknowledge that judges can make law, but the thesis
demonstrates the considerable weight that is nevertheless attached to judicial decisions in
practice.
The impact of differences in legal methodology on substantive law is a principal theme of the
investigation. It is addressed by means of a systematic comparison between the manner in
which the two systems deal with concepts such as heiuristic act and declarations of will, the
notion of contract and the relevance of offer and acceptance as its constituent elements.
Thereafter the broad topic of mistake as a circumstance that vitiates agreement and other
defects of will such as deceit, duress and undue influence are considered.
Whereas German law as a codified system presents a comprehensive regulation of the issues, a case law system such as that of South Africa can only deal with matters brought before the
courts by parties engaged in a dispute. Because judges also tend to frame decisions as
narrowly as possible, such a system characterised by gaps in the law in relations to issues that
have not been authoritatively determined. The resultant uncertainty is exacerbated by the fact
that different courts might decide the same issue differently and that a considerable period of
time might elapse before the issue is settled by the highest court in the judicial hierarchy.
In regard to matters of substance, both systems proceed from a common conceptual
framework, but often tend to emphasise different aspects in coming to solutions. German law
places great store on the notion of the declaration of will, a concept which is analysed in
considerable detail in relation to its treatment in South African law. Although South African
law recognises the notion of a juristic act, there is no sign of the refined and systematic
discussion of the concept along the lines of German law. In consequence, concepts such as offer and acceptance play a less important role in South African law. In relation to the
treatment of mistake as well the greater emphasis of German law on the declarations of will
is in marked contrast to the more subjective approach of South African law and its resort to a
theory of reliance as a corrective liability in cases of disagreement. Both systems adopt an
approach with subjective and objective elements. but with a different mix of these elements in
each instance.
An overriding conclusion is that both systems might have erred in placing too great an
emphasis on objective elements in the determination of when contractual liability should be
imposed. It is contended that renewed attention to the doctrine of culpa in contrahendo might
enable both South African and German law to deal more satisfactorily with the problem of disagreement in contract. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Die probleem van dwaling en die uitwerking daarvan op kontraksluiting is 'n sentrale
vraagstuk van die kontraktereg van alle lande. Die proefskrif ondersoek hierdie problematiek
deur die hantering daarvan in sowel die Duitse as die Suid-Afrikaanse reg te oorweeg.
Alhoewel beide hierdie stelsels van romanisriese oorsprong is, is die Duitse 'n gekodifiseerde
en die Suid-Afrikaanse 'n ongekodifiseerde stelsel. In die afwesigheid van wetgewing, word
regsprobleme in Suid-Afrika aan die hand van die gemenereg deur middel van beslissings van
die hoë hof opgelos ingevolge 'n strenge presedentestelsel. Alhoewel die Duitse reg nie
formeel erken dat regterlike beslissings regskeppend kan werk nie, toon die proefskrif aan dat
daar tog in die praktyk groot gewig aan regterlike uitsprake geheg word.
Die uitwerking van hierdie metodologiese verskille is 'n hooftema van die ondersoek. Dit
geskied by wyse van 'n sistemariese vergelyking van die hantering in die twee stelsels van
begrippe soos die regshandeling en die wilsverklaring. die kontrak en die rol van aanbod en
aanname as konstituterende elemente van 'n kontrak. Hierna kom die breë vraagstuk van
dwaling aan die orde as 'n omstandigheid war wilsooreenstemming ondermyn, asook die
samehangende kwessies van bedrog, dwang en onbehoorlike beïnvloeding.
Alhoewel beide stelsels in substantiewe aangeleenthede uitgaan van 'n gemeenskaplike
konseptueie raamwerk. word aangetoon dat by die bereik van oplossings, die klem dikwels
heel verskillend geplaas word. Van sentrale belang is vir die Duitse reg is die
wilsverklaringsbegrip, wat in vergelyking met die behandeling daarvan. In Suid-Afrika in
groot besonderhede ontleed word. Alhoewel die Suid-Afrikaanse reg, soos die Duitse reg uitgaan van die begrip regshandeling, ontbreek die genuanseerde en sistemariese behandeling
van die Duitse reg. As gevolg hiervan speel die begrippe aanbod en aanname 'n relatief
mlnder belangrike rol in die Suid-Afrikaanse reg. Met betrekking tot die
dwalingsproblematiek ook is die groter klem op die Duitse reg op die wilsverklaring van die
partye opvallend en in skerp teenstelling, tot die meer subjektiewe benadering van die Suid-
Afrikaanse reg en die aanwending van die vertrouensteorie as 'n korrektiewe
aanspreeklikheid in gevalle van 'n gebrek aan wilsooreesntemming. Alhoewel albei stelsels
erkenning gee aan subjektiewe en objektiewe elemente, is daar verskille vir sover dit die
relatiewe klem op elkeen aangaan. Die oorkoepelende gevolgtrekking is dat albei stelsels miskien te veel gewig gee aan die
objektiewe element by die bepaling van aanspreeklikheid. Die voorstel is dat daar weer met
vrug na die leerstuk van culpa in contrahendo gekyk sou kon word.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:netd.ac.za/oai:union.ndltd.org:sun/oai:scholar.sun.ac.za:10019.1/49976 |
| Date | 04 1900 |
| Creators | Otto, Michael |
| Contributors | Lubbe, G. F., Stellenbosch University. Faculty of Law. Department of Public Law. |
| Publisher | Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University |
| Source Sets | South African National ETD Portal |
| Language | en_ZA |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis |
| Format | vi, 176 pages |
| Rights | Stellenbosch University |
Page generated in 0.0128 seconds