Hierdie proefskrif handel oor aspekte van inaedificatio (bebouing) in die Suid-Afrikaanse, Engelse
en Nederlandse reg. Die klem val op die maatstawwe wat aangewend word om te bepaal of
aanhegting van ‘n roerende saak aan ‘n onroerende saak plaasgevind het.
Die maatstawwe in die drie stelsels toon ooreenkomste en verskille. Een ooreenkoms is dat die
graad en wyse van aanhegting in die Suid-Afrikaanse reg oorweeg word, terwyl daar in die
Engelse reg slegs na die graad van aanhegting gekyk word. In die Nederlandse reg word ’n
duursame verbinding vereis om te bepaal of bestanddeelvorming plaasgevind het, en word gevra
of verwydering van die saak sonder beskadiging kan plaasvind. In die Suid-Afrikaanse reg word
die doel van die aangehegte saak oorweeg, hoewel Innes HR dit nie in MacDonald Ltd v Radin
NO & The Potchefstroom Dairies & Industries Co Ltd so formuleer nie. Die aard van die roerende
saak word in die Suid-Afrikaanse reg oorweeg, terwyl die aard en ontwerp van die roerende saak
in die Nederlandse reg oorweeg word. In die Engelse reg word die doel waarvoor die aanhegting
gemaak is oorweeg om die bedoeling met die aanhegting te bepaal. Die vraag is of die saak vir
die permanente en substansiële verbetering van die gebou (grond) aangeheg is, of vir ’n tydelike
doel of vir die beter benutting van die chattel. Die Nederlandse reg beklemtoon die bestemming
van die aanhegting. Die opvallendste verskil tussen die Suid-Afrikaanse reg en die ander twee
stelsels is die belang van die subjektiewe bedoeling van een of ander betrokkene.
Die regsposisie van huurders wat sake aanheg verskil van dié van ander aanhegters. In al drie
regstelsels kan huurders voor afloop van die huurtermyn sommige aangehegte sake verwyder,
mits die huurgrond in dieselfde toestand gelaat word as waarin dit was voor die aanhegting. Die
drie stelsels vertoon verskille soos dat onsekerheid bestaan oor wie die eienaar van die
aangehegte sake is voor verwydering. In die Engelse reg heg bedryfsaanhegtings en ornamentele
aanhegtings, nie aan nie. Ingevolge die Nederlandse reg is die verhuurder gedurende die
huurtermyn eienaar van die aanhegtings, aangesien aanhegting plaasvind sodra die roerende
sake aan die huurgrond heg. Die Suid-Afrikaanse reg hieroor is onduidelik. / This thesis deals with aspects of inaedificatio (building) in South African, English and Dutch law.
The emphasis falls on the criteria that are applied to determine whether attachment of a movable
to an immovable thing occurred.
The criteria in the three systems show similarities and differences. One similarity is that in South
African law the degree and manner of attachment are considered, while in English law only the
degree of attachment is considered. To determine whether one thing became a component part of
another thing (bestanddeelvorming) a durable connection is required In Dutch law. The question is
whether removal can take place without causing damage. The purpose of the attached thing is
considered in South African law, although Innes CJ did not formulate this criterion in this manner
in MacDonald Ltd v Radin NO & The Potchefstroom Dairies & Industries Co Ltd. The nature of the
movable thing is relevant, while the nature and design of the movable thing are considered in
Dutch law. In English law the purpose of the attachment is considered to determine the intention
with the attachment. The question is whether the thing was attached for the permanent and
substantial improvement of the building (land) or for a temporary purpose or for the better use of
the chattel. The destination (bestemming) of the attachment is considered in Dutch law. The most
significant difference between South African law and the other two systems is the importance of
the subjective intention of some person involved in the situation.
The legal position of lessees who attach movales differs from that of other persons who make
such attachments. In all three legal systems lessees may remove certain attached movables
before the expiry of the term of lease as long as the leased land is left in the same condition that it
was in before the attachment. The three systems also differs for example it is not certain who the
owner of the attached things is before removal of the attachments. In English law trade and
ornamental fixtures do not attach. In Dutch law the lessor is the owner of the attachments during
the term of lease, because attachment takes place when the movable things are fixed to the
leased land. The position in South African law on this is unclear. / Private Law / LL. D.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:netd.ac.za/oai:union.ndltd.org:unisa/oai:uir.unisa.ac.za:10500/21718 |
| Date | 27 October 2016 |
| Creators | Knobel, Ina Magdalena |
| Contributors | Scott, Susan (Susanna Johanna) |
| Source Sets | South African National ETD Portal |
| Language | Afrikaans |
| Detected Language | Unknown |
| Type | Thesis |
| Format | 1 online resource (7 unnumbered pages, iv, 367 leaves) |
Page generated in 0.0024 seconds