Thesis (LLM)--Stellenbosch University, 2012. / Includes bibliography / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: It is a general principle of the law of South Africa that an unassisted contract of a
minor is unenforceable against the minor. Although it binds the other party, the minor
is not bound. The minor will only be bound if the contract is enforced by his guardian,
or if the contract is ratified by the child after attaining majority. This implies that the
other party is in a rather unfortunate position, since the effectiveness of the contract
will remain uncertain until the guardian of the minor decides to enforce or repudiate
the contract, or until the minor ratifies it after attaining majority. The other party may
not resile from the contract during this interim period.
Should it be established that the contract has failed, the question arises to what
extent the parties are obliged to return performances made in purported fulfilment of
the contract. In terms of the law of South Africa, the prevailing view is that these claims are based
on unjustified enrichment. However, the extent of these claims differs. In principle,
both parties’ liability will be limited to the amount remaining in its estate, according to
the defence of loss of enrichment. But the application of the defence is subject to an
exception that does not apply equally to the parties. Had the other party known or
should the other party have known that the enrichment was sine causa, yet
continued to part with it, he will be held liable for the full enrichment. However, this
exception does not apply to the enrichment liability of minors. In other words,
whether the minor knew or should have known that the enrichment was sine causa,
he would still be allowed to raise the defence of loss of enrichment. Furthermore, the
rules applicable to minors’ enrichment liability applies to all minors, and no scope is
left to consider the specific circumstances of each minor.
It is accepted that there are two competing principles relating to minors’ unassisted
contracts. On the one hand, the law must protect the minor from his immaturity and
lack of experience. On the other hand, the law must protect the interests of the other
party. It will be seen throughout this study that the determination of how to balance
these competing principles is not an easy task. The key aim of this thesis is to investigate the principles governing the unwinding of
unassisted minors’ contracts in South Africa. A comparison will be made with the principles applied in other legal systems, in order to identify similarities and
differences in the approaches and, to establish what underlies the differences in the
various approaches.
Germany, England and Scotland have been chosen for comparison for various
reasons. First, they share some historical roots, and they represent three major legal
traditions, namely the civil law, common law and mixed legal systems, of which
South Africa also forms part. Secondly, both England and Scotland have
experienced recent legislative reform in this regard, which implies that their
respective legal systems should be in line with modern tendencies, and
consequently they may provide a valuable framework for possible reform in South
Africa. In Germany, although mainly regulated by rather older legislation, there have
been interesting developments in the determination of consequences of failed
contracts. Hellwege has argued that the unwinding of all contracts should be treated similarly,
regardless of the unwinding factor. He has also suggested that in order to prevent
the accumulation of risk on one party, and to ensure that the risk is placed on the
person who is in control of the object, the defence of loss of enrichment should not
be available to any party. His reasoning and suggestions is dealt with in more detail
in this thesis.
This study argues that the current strict approach applied under South African law
regarding minors’ unassisted contracts needs to be re-considered. The current
approach is dated and is not in line with modern tendencies and legislation. No
proper consideration is given to minors’ development into adulthood or personal
circumstances of the parties. It is submitted that in the process of re-consideration,
some form of acknowledgement must be given to minors’ development towards
mature adults. It is submitted that this would be possible by introducing a more
flexible approach to regulate the enforceability and unwinding of minors’ unassisted
contracts. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING Dit is ‘n algemene beginsel van die Suid-Afrikaanse reg dat ‘n kontrak aangegaan
deur ‘n minderjarige sonder die nodige bystand van sy ouer of voog onafdwingbaar
is teenoor die minderjarige. Die minderjarige sal slegs gebonde wees indien die
kontrak afgedwing word deur sy voog, of indien die minderjarige self die kontrak
ratifiseer nadat hy meerderjarig word. Dit impliseer dat die ander party in ‘n
ongunstige posisie is, aangesien die werking van die kontrak onseker is totdat die
voog besluit om die kontrak af te dwing of te repudieer, of totdat die minderjarige dit
ratifiseer nadat hy meerderjarig word. Gedurende hierdie interim periode mag die
ander party nie terugtree uit hierdie kontrak nie.
Sou dit bepaal word dat die kontrak misluk het, ontstaan die vraag tot watter mate
die partye verplig word om prestasies wat reeds gemaak is, terug te gee. In terme van die Suid-Afrikaanse reg is die meerderheidsopinie dat hierdie eise
gebaseer is op onregverdige verryking, maar die omvang van die partye se eise
verskil. In beginsel is beide partye se aanspreeklikheid beperk tot die bedrag wat
steeds in sy boedel beskikbaar is, weens die beskikbaarheid van die verweer van
verlies van verryking. Maar die toepassing van die verweer is onderworpe aan ‘n
uitsondering wat nie op beide partye geld nie. Indien die ander party geweet het of
moes geweet het dat die verryking sine causa was, maar steeds afstand gedoen het
van die verryking, sal hy aanspreeklik gehou word vir die volle verryking. Hierdie reel
is egter nie van toepassing op die minderjarige se verrykingsaanspreeklikheid nie.
Met ander woorde, indien die minderjarige geweet het of moes geweet het dat die
verryking sine causa was, en steeds afstand gedoen het van die verryking, sal hy
steeds die verweer van verlies van verryking kan opper. Bowendien, die reels van
toepassing op minderjariges se verrykingsaanspreeklikheid is van toepassing op alle
minderjariges, en geen ruimte word gelaat om die spesifieke omstandighede van
elke minderjarige in ag te neem nie. Wanneer ons kontrakte aangegaan deur minderjariges sonder die nodige bystand,
oorweeg, word dit algemeen aanvaar dat daar twee kompeterende beginsels van
belang is. Aan die een kant moet die reg die minderjarige beskerm teen sy
onvolwassenheid en gebrek aan ondervinding. Aan die ander kant moet die reg ook
die belange van die ander party beskerm. Dit sal deurlopend in hierdie studie gesien word dat die behoorlike balansering van hierdie twee beginsels nie ‘n maklike taak is
nie.
Die hoofdoel van hierdie tesis is om die beginsels wat die afdwingbaarheid en
ontbinding van minderjariges se kontrakte in Suid-Afrika, wat aangegaan is sonder
die nodige bystand van ‘n voog, te ondersoek. ‘n Vergelyking sal getref word met die
beginsels wat in ander regstelsels toegepas word, om sodoende die ooreenkomste
en verskille te identifiseer, asook om te bepaal wat hierdie verskille onderlê.
Duitsland, Engeland en Skotland is gekies as vergelykende jurisdiksies vir verskeie
redes, naamlik hulle historiese gebondenheid en die feit dat hulle drie groot
regstradisies (die kontinentale regstelsel, die gemenereg en die gemengde
regstelsel) verteenwoordig. Bowendien het beide Engeland en Skotland onlangse
wetgewende hervorming ondergaan in hierdie sfeer van die reg, wat impliseer dat
hierdie regstelsels waarskynlik in lyn sal wees met moderne tendense. Gevolglik kan
hulle ‘n waardevolle raamwerk skep waarbinne moontlike hervorming in Suid-Afrika
mag plaasvind. Alhoewel Duitsland grotendeels nog deur ouer wetgewing gereguleer
word, het dit ook ‘n reeks interessante verwikkelinge ondergaan in die bepaling van
die gevolge van kontrakte wat misluk het. Hellwege argumenteer dat die ontbinding van alle kontrakte dieselfde hanteer moet
word, ongeag die onderliggende ontbindende faktor. Hy stel ook voor dat om te
verhoed dat die risiko op slegs een party geplaas word, en om te verseker dat dit
eerder gedra word deur daardie party wat beheer het oor die voorwerp, die verweer
van verlies van verryking nie vir enige party beskikbaar moet wees nie. Sy
redenering en voorstelle word in meer besonderhede in hierdie studie bespreek.
Hierdie studie argumenteer dat die huidige streng benadering wat in Suid-Afrika
toegepas word met betrekking tot kontrakte aangegaan deur minderjariges sonder
die nodige bystand van ‘n voog, heroorweeg moet word. Die huidige benadering is
verouderd en is nie lyn met moderne tendense en wetgewing nie. Bowendien word
geen behoorlike oorweging gegee aan minderjariges se ontwikkeling tot
volwassenheid nie, en die partye se persoonlike omstandighede word ook nie in ag
geneem nie. Daar word argumenteer dat in die proses van heroorweging, ‘n mate
van erkenning gegee moet word aan minderjariges se persoonlike ontwikkeling.
Daar word verder argumenteer dat ‘n meer buigsame benadering toegepas moet word ten opsigte van die regulering van die afdwingbaarheid en ontbinding van
hierdie kontrakte.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:netd.ac.za/oai:union.ndltd.org:sun/oai:scholar.sun.ac.za:10019.1/71723 |
| Date | 12 1900 |
| Creators | Watt, Ilze Jr |
| Contributors | Du Plessis, Jacques Etienne, Stellenbosch University. Faculty of Law. Dept. of Private Law. |
| Publisher | Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University |
| Source Sets | South African National ETD Portal |
| Detected Language | Unknown |
| Type | Thesis |
| Format | x, 180 p. |
| Rights | Stellenbosch University |
Page generated in 0.0173 seconds