Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Swinburne v Newbee Investments (Pty) Ltd 2010 (5) SA 296 (KZD)-Delictual liability

  1. #1
    Diamond Member Vanash Naick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    lenasia
    Posts
    3,315
    Thanks
    853
    Thanked 697 Times in 609 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Swinburne v Newbee Investments (Pty) Ltd 2010 (5) SA 296 (KZD)-Delictual liability

    TABLE OF CONTENTS
    1.Introduction 1
    2. Facts of the case 1-2
    3. Issues and decision 2
    4.Critical analyses of the following:
    4.1 The elements of wrongfulness and negligence with regard to delictual liability 2-6
    4.2 Interpretation of the exemption clause 6-7
    4.3 Public policy consideration relating to the exemption clauses 7-10
    5.Conclusion 10
    6. Bibliography 11-12
    LLB(UNISA), N.Dip(TWR)
    vanash.naick@gmail.com
    Services: Fire-Arm licence Motivation letters, Labour Law Consulting, drafting of professional legal and business contracts and conducting case-law research for attorneys
    Everything is awesome

  2. #2
    Diamond Member Vanash Naick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    lenasia
    Posts
    3,315
    Thanks
    853
    Thanked 697 Times in 609 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    1. INTRODUCTION
    The division of law, to which this case pertains, is identified as Private law.[1] It is ascertained that the law of delict is a subdivision of the law of obligations.[2] It is established that a delict is a civil wrong. The elements of a delict are an act or omission, wrongfulness, fault, causation and harm.[3]It is established that two definitional elements are the focus of this case. These are: wrongfulness,[4] and fault(negligence).[5] In the former, the fulcrum is wrongfulness in the form ofliability for an omission, and, in the latter it’s negligence (culpa).[6] It is established that all elements of a delict must be complied with before delictual liability can arise.[7]This paper seeks to critically evaluate the court’s decision in Swinburne v Newbee Investments (Pty).[8] In order to establish whether the court reached the correct finding on the first two issues, of this case, it is necessary to assess the sources of law that the court used in order to reach its decision. In order to ascertain whether another court could have arrived at a different finding, on the third main issue, it is necessary to consider what leading authorities have articulated regarding the position of exemption clauses.
    2. FACTS
    Swinburne, a tenant, under a lease agreement with Newbee Investments, fell while negotiating a staircase.[9] He claimed that Newbie Investments were negligent,[10] in particular by not installing rails on the staircase.[11] The defendant raised two arguments in response to the allegation of negligence.[12] The defendant firstly argued that none of the tenants were forced to use the staircase and that there was another option, namely the driveway.[13]The defendant’s second argument was that the weather was so bad on that night that the plaintiffshould have realised that he could not have used the staircase safely.[14]The defendant also relied on exemption clauses.[15] The court ruled in favour of the plaintiff.[16]
    3. ISSUES AND DECISION
    The first issue is whether delictual liability arose.To this end the requirements of wrongfulness and negligence had to be decided. The court found that the defendant was negligent, in that the defendant failed to provide a ‘handrail,’ for all who used the staircase.[17]
    The second issue is whether the exemption clauses excluded delictual liability;The court found that the defendant is not excluded from delictual liability based on the lease exemption clauses.[18]
    The third issue is, had the exemption clause been valid, would this be contrary to public policy? The court expressed an opinion in obiter
    4.CRITICAL ANALYSES
    4.1 The elements of wrongfulness and negligence with regard to delictual liability
    Wrongfulness is a key component of delictual liability, without which, a defendant cannot incur delictual liability.[19] To correctly establish wrongfulness, it must be accepted that wrongfulness does not depend solely on the infringement of a subjective right.[20] There are laid down situations where it’s more prudent to establish whether a breach of a legal duty has taken place as opposed to establishing whether an infringement of a subjective right has taken place.[21] Wrongfulness is established by considering, whether, based on the boni mores, the defendant did indeed have a legal duty to prevent a plaintiff from being in a harmful situation and was reasonably expected to do so, but the defendant failed to do so.[22] The boni mores test is common to both an infringement of a subjective right as well as the breach of a legal duty.[23]To answer the question of whether an omission is wrongful requires simply asking whether the wrong doer has a legal duty to act positively.[24] In Swinburne, the court commenced its fact finding process with establishing whether the defendant had a legal duty to act positively, to protect the defendant and other users of the staircase from danger alternatively harm, which could arise from their use of this staircase.[25]This necessitated the examination of the circumstances.[26]The court referred to a few cases as well as considered the common law position the owner of property already has[27].The court citedVan Eeden v Minister of Safety and Security,[28]where the court stated that in common law wrongfulness is used to establish delictual liability for an omission. The appropriate test was clearly laid down in the cited paragraph. Where a defendant has a legal duty to act positively to prevent harm and does not do so the omission is wrongful.[29] The defendant has a legal duty to take actual steps to prevent harm to someone if it is ‘reasonably,’ expected of such a person.The defendant has a legal duty to ‘act positively,’ to prevent a defendant from suffering harm if it is reasonably expected of such a person, and he/she doesn’t act positively, he/she is deemed to have done something wrongful.[30]The test is classified as one of reasonableness.[31] It is submitted that this is not the ‘reasonable person test’, as the reasonable person test,’ is not used in wrongfulness, it is used in negligence. This test is different! The court simply has to make a ‘value judgment,’ ‘based upon its perception of the legal convictions of the community and on considerations of policy.[32] So, at this junction, it needs to be asked: What is this concept of the legal convictions of the community? The basic test of wrongfulness is the legal convictions of the community also known as the boni mores.[33]It can be safely said that the boni mores is the legal sense of South Africa.Failure to act when there is a legal duty to act is already a ‘practical application,’ of the boni mores benchmark measure.[34] This is so as failure to comply with a legal duty to act falls under a category of ‘legal norms and doctrines,’ that being said, once the court simply establishes that there has indeed been a failure to comply with a legal duty to act, it can be safely said, that this breach will be evidence of infringing the legal convictions of the community.[35] The test is an objective one which is based on ‘reasonableness;’ at its root, is the question: Did

    [1]Neethling and PotgieterDelict3.

    [2]Neethling and PotgieterDelict3.

    [3]Neethling and PotgieterDelict4.

    [4]Neethling and PotgieterDelict33.

    [5]Neethling and PotgieterDelict 129.

    [6]Neethling and PotgieterDelict 129.

    [7]Neethling and PotgieterDelict 4.

    [8]2010 (5) SA 296 (KZD)(hereinafter referred to as Swinburne).

    [9]Swinburne97.

    [10]Swinburne97.

    [11]Swinburne98.

    [12]Swinburne104.

    [13]Swinburne104

    [14]Swinburne104.

    [15]Swinburne 104-110.

    [16]Swinburne 112.

    [17]Swinburne 104.

    [18]Swinburne 110.

    [19]Neethling and PotgieterDelict33.

    [20]Neethling and PotgieterDelict55.

    [21]Neethling and PotgieterDelict55.

    [22]Neethling and PotgieterDelict56.

    [23]Neethling and PotgieterDelict57.

    [24]BobergDelict 32.

    [25]Swinburne 101.

    [26]Swinburne 101.

    [27]Swinburne 102.

    [28]2003 1 SA 389 (SCA) 396.

    [29]Swinburne 101.

    [30]Van Eeden v Minister of safety and Security 2003 (1) SA 389 (SCA) 9.

    [31]2003 (1) SA 389 (SCA) 9.

    [32]2003 (1) SA 389 (SCA) 9.

    [33]Neethling and PotgieterDelict36.

    [34]Neethling and PotgieterDelict47.

    [35]Neethling and PotgieterDelict47.
    LLB(UNISA), N.Dip(TWR)
    vanash.naick@gmail.com
    Services: Fire-Arm licence Motivation letters, Labour Law Consulting, drafting of professional legal and business contracts and conducting case-law research for attorneys
    Everything is awesome

  3. #3
    Diamond Member Vanash Naick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    lenasia
    Posts
    3,315
    Thanks
    853
    Thanked 697 Times in 609 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    the defendant infringe the rights of the plaintiff in an unreasonable manner with disregard for the legal convictions of the community?[1] The court has to weigh up the interests of the defendant,in light of the omission, against those rights of the plaintiff that have been infringed.[2] This process also includes considering the social impact of declaring a defendant liable in similar cases.[3] The court must also look at all other circumstances, and only once it has undergone this process, can it then decide whether the defendant unreasonably infringed the ‘plaintiff’s interest.’[4] In essence wrongfulness, in this context, is determined by a posing a straight forward question: Does the defendant, based upon the legal convictions of the community, have a legal duty to do something to prevent harm from taking place to someone else.[5]The correct application of the boni mores test is considering whether society considers a certain act or omission as delictually wrongful. In order to quantify the legal convictions of the community, it is submitted that this is the legal convictions of the legislature, judiciary as well as those who make policy.[6]Liability can only arise if indeed the defendant had a legal duty to do something in practice to prevent harm but failed, neglected or refused to fulfil that duty.[7]In Minister van Polisie v Ewels,[8]a complainant who visited his local police station was assaulted by someone in the very police station. The perpetrator was a police officer but he was not on duty on that particular day. The police as an institution represented by the policemen and women, who work for the police, such as those working behind the charges desk and all others, have a legal duty to protect that individual from harm and all other individuals from harm.[9] In this case the court held that an omission is wrongful when the circumstances surrounding this omission are such that the community demands that the omission be classified as wrongful.[10]The question the court has to ask is: whether the plaintiff is under a legal duty to take steps to prevent harm to the defendant. They therefore have a duty to act positively by taking certain steps such as physically intervening, arresting the perpetrator and ensuring that the assault victim is no longer assaulted until arrest is affected. This position of legal duty to take steps was also dealt with in Cape Town Municipality v Bakkerud,[11]the court ruled that the municipality had a legal duty to repair pavement holes and to warn the public as to their existence.[12]The court cited paragraph 9 ofVan Eeden v Minister of Safety and Security,[13]The court cited Minister of Safety and Security v Van Duivenboden,[14]in this case the SCA confirmed that the state has a legal duty to act positively.[15] Regarding the legal duty of an owner of property to users, the court cited Skinner v Johannesburg Turf Club,[16]Brauns v Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd,[17] and Spencer v Barclays Bank.[18]The court citedBurton v The Real Estate Corporation,[19] to show that an owner of property has a legal duty to ensure that it is safe.[20]A building may be seen as a dangerous object.[21] In order to prove that a defendant, such as Swinburne, had control over the building, it simply needs to be shown that the defendant was the owner of the building.[22]Since it was established that the plaintiff had a legal duty to have done certain things in practice to protect the staircase users from harm;[23] and thus wrongfulness established, it could now move on to the question of negligence.Negligence as a component of fault is the blameworthy aspect of a perpetrator who has acted wrongfully.[24] In order to establish whether a perpetrator acted negligently, we use the standard of the reasonable personreferred to as the bonus paterfamilias,[25]or diligens paterfamilias.[26] The courts basis for the use of the reasonable person is Kruger v Coetzee.[27] This case has been continuously used by our courts since its inception in 1966. In Kruger v Coetzee, the court decided that any reasonable person in the same position of the defendant would foresee the possibility of his act causing someone else harm, and would take reasonable steps to prevent this harm from occurring but failed to take such steps.[28]

    This begs the question: What is the reasonable person? The reasonable person is a non- existent character which the law has invented to measure negligence.[29] The reasonable person is neither a rocket scientist nor is he a fool; the reasonable person can thus be found between these ‘two extremes.’[30]In Jones NO v SantamBpk,[31] an individual is negligent where the objective standard of thediligens paterfamiliasis fallen short of.[32]The question the court in Swinburnehad to ask is whether a reasonable person, in the position of the defendant, would have foreseen the possibility that his omission of providing a handrail would result in injury; and upon seeing this eventuality, the defendant would then have taken physical steps, in particular, the installation of a handrail to prevent injury to users.[33] The court found that a reasonable person in the position of the defendant would have foreseen the possibility that a user of the staircase would slip on ‘loose material,’ with the absence of a handrail.[34] It is submitted that this application is correct.

    4.2 Interpretation of the exemption clause
    A lease agreement is a contract. The legal relationship is made and entered into by the contracting parties themselves, Ulpian stated that ‘stipulations and other contracts we always follow that which the parties intended.’[35] The inference is that contractual stipulations between parties should be honoured. An exemption clause is essentiality a limitation on contractual and delictual liability.[36]An exemption clause specifies that one of the contracting parties is exempt from specific obligations.[37]The law of contract has brought with it certain laid down principles such as, that contracting parties are free not only to contract but also to limit or vary liability that the law places as a sanction on a transgressor.[38]The limitation of a defendant’s liability depends on the manner in which the exemption clause is interpreted.[39] The defendant in denying liability used two exemption clauses as a defence.[40]There are rules pertaining to the interpretation of an exemption clause. Since contracting parties are free to determine their contractual rights and obligations, a rule of interpretation is that the intention of the contracting parties must be ascertained as at the time the contract was entered into.[41] The objectives and context of provisions in a contract must be taken into

    [1]Neethling and PotgieterDelict37.

    [2]Neethling and PotgieterDelict38.

    [3]Neethling and PotgieterDelict38.

    [4]Neethling and PotgieterDelict38

    [5]Neethling and PotgieterDelict56.

    [6]Neethling and PotgieterDelict42.

    [7]Neethling and PotgieterDelict58.

    [8]1975 3 SA 590 (A).

    [9]Neetling,Visser and Scott Casebook on the law of delict 127-130.

    [10]Neetling,Visser and Scott Casebook on the law of delict 36.

    [11]2000 (3) SA 1049 (SCA) (Hereinafter referred to as Cape Town Municipality).

    [12]Cape Town Municipality 1061.

    [13] 2003 (1) SA 389 (SCA) 7.

    [14]2002 (6) SA 431 (SCA).

    [15]Neetling,Visser and Scott Casebook on the law of delict 155.

    [16]1907 TS 859.

    [17]2004 (6) SA 211 (E) 212.

    [18]1947 (3) SA 230 (T).

    [19]1903 TH 430.

    [20]Swinburne 102.

    [21]Neethling and PotgieterDelict62.

    [22]Neethling and PotgieterDelict63.

    [23]Neethling and Potgieter 2011 THRHR 689.

    [24]Neethling and PotgieterDelict137.

    [25]Neethling and PotgieterDelict137.

    [26]BobergDelict 269.

    [27]Swinburne 103.

    [28]1966 2 SA 428 (A) 430.

    [29]Neethling and PotgieterDelict 141.

    [30]Neethling and PotgieterDelict 141.

    [31]1965 2 SA 542 (A).

    [32]Neethling and PotgieterDelict 139.

    [33]Swinburne 103.

    [34]Swinburne 103.

    [35]KerrContract 3.

    [36]Neethling and PotgieterDelict 277.

    [37]KerrContract 427.

    [38]Naudé and Lubbe 2005 SALJ 442.

    [39]Neethling and PotgieterDelict277.

    [40]Swinburne 105.

    [41]KerrContract 386.
    Last edited by Vanash Naick; 21-Jan-19 at 03:25 PM.
    LLB(UNISA), N.Dip(TWR)
    vanash.naick@gmail.com
    Services: Fire-Arm licence Motivation letters, Labour Law Consulting, drafting of professional legal and business contracts and conducting case-law research for attorneys
    Everything is awesome

  4. #4
    Diamond Member Vanash Naick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    lenasia
    Posts
    3,315
    Thanks
    853
    Thanked 697 Times in 609 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    consideration when interpreting a contract.[1] Words in a contract cannot be looked at in isolation and must be looked at holistically with regard to the contract as a whole.[2]This can be seen as a contextual approach to interpreting contract provisions. When interpreting clauses in a contract, we should consider the ordinary grammatical meaning unless this meaning would lead to outrageous or an utter nonsense meaning.[3] The defendant used clause 17 to show that it was not liable to the plaintiff in his capacity as lessee for all types of damage incurred due to any negligent act or omission on the part of the plaintiff in its capacity as lessor.[4] The court put clause 17 into perspective and came to the conclusion that this clause relates to repairs and maintenance of the ‘exterior of the building,’ and thereby was not applicable.[5]To set out how the court would interpret clause 26, the court cited Durban’s Water Wonderland (Pty) Limited v Botha;[6]in this case the court stated effect will be given to an exemption clause if that clause is stated in a clear and unambiguous manner.[7]Thisis the locusclassicus because the court stated that if the language of the exemption clause, which exempts the proferens, is clear the exemption clause is valid.[8] However, if it is unclear, it should be used against the proferens.[9]InSwinburne, the court provided that not only is the structure of a provision important but also the context which it falls in as part of the contract as a whole.[10] The court found that the lease agreement used was from a very old lease template, and that this contract was not individualised.[11] The court found that the clause in question related to negligence of the defendant for repairs and maintenance of the building, and further that the words employed make no reference to ‘personal injuries.’[12]

    4.3 Public policy consideration relating to the exemption clauses

    The court in Swinburne,cited Johannesburg Country Club v Scott.[13]It pointed out that the Supreme Court of Appeal, examined whether an exemption clause for the negligent taking of another’s life, is proportional to infringing the constitutional right to life.[14] Using logical deduction, it came to the conclusion, that it could be argued that exemption clauses which exclude liability for causing actual physical injury likewise infringe upon the rights as embodied in s 12(2)(b) of the Constitution,[15] which provides everyone has the right to bodily and psychological integrity, which includes the right to security in and control over their body.[16] It was taken in obiter that further refinement of public policy was necessary.[17]The conclusion and actual purpose of a contract must be lawful, so if a contract is against the bonimores, then it is already unlawful.[18]The court also cited Barkhuizenv Napiers,[19]and Afrox Healthcare Limited v Strydom.[20]In Afrox,acceptance of exemption clauses into our law, and therefore in compliance with public policy was seen.[21]In Barkhuizen,[22] though the matter related to a time limiting exemption clause, the matter went all the way to the Constitutional Court.The face of public policy has been seen in many cases, such as inCarmichele v Minister ofSafety and Security.[23]The Constitutional courtheld that the common law aspect of the law of delict had to be developed to promote the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights.[24] There is an inextricable link between the law of delict and the Constitution,[25] andin particular fundamental rights.[26] Section 7(2) of the Constitution,[27]provides that the state must respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights in the Bill of Rights. Perhaps more importantly, section8(1) provides that the Bill of Rights applies to all law, and binds the legislature, the executive, the judiciary and all organs of state.[28]The implication of the latter is that this constitutional provision is also fully applicable to the law ofdelict.[29]In Barkhuizenthe court stated that the validity of all law is ‘subject to constitutional control.’[30]Of further Constitutional significance is section 39(1)(a) which provides that: when interpreting the Bill of Rights, a courts must promote the values that underlie an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, and section 39(2) which provides that when interpreting legislation, developing the common law or customary law, courts must promote the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights.[31]The closest understanding of what public policy actually is stems from the Constitutional Court itself, in Barkhuizen,[32] where it was stated that public policy is indicative of the legal convictions of the community, that it actually reflects the values that are most highly regarded by society.[33] The court stated:“Determining the content of public policy was once fraught with difficulties. That is no longer the case. Since the advent of our constitutional democracy, public policy is now deeply rooted in our Constitution and the values which underlie it.” The court made specific mention of the advancement of human rights.This confirms that the Constitution is the face of public policy. In Barkhuizen, the constitutional court had to establish whether a time-limiting clause in an insurance policy was unconstitutional.[34]The problematic clause gave an insurance claimant only 90 days to institute court proceedings, after a claim was repudiated.[35]The proper determination of what public policy is and whether a contractual provision is against public policy has to be established against the concrete background of the founding values of the constitution which is reflected in the Bill of Rights.[36] A time limiting clause affects an individual’s right to access to the courts in the form of a judicial presiding over a case that such a person brings.[37]The court pointed out that s34 of the Constitution,[38] enshrined the right to access to our courts for everyone.[39]The court did state that the Afrox case demonstrated the concept of inequality of bargaining power and that this could be one factor in rendering a clause contrary to public policy and the Constitution.[40] The court expressed that there was no evidence that the contract was not entered into freely and voluntarily and that there was no evidence that there was unequal bargaining power between the parties.[41] Had the words in dispute also included injury to other persons, then this would exclude liability for the negligent causing of injury.[42] In Swinburne the court stated in anobiter, that had clause 26 excluded the defendant’s liability, public policy would have influenced it because: the defendant had no bargaining power; the clauses in question are hidden in the contract and not explained to the plaintiff; the exemption clause infringes a tenant’s common law right against a landlord, as the landlord must ensure that safety of a building, the landlord is able to take insurance and that the fundamental right of physical integrity should be given considerable weight.[43]

    5. CONCLUSION
    Swinburne decided wrongfulness first.[44] Each case must be determined on its own merits,[45] which was the approach in Swinburne.[46]Specific mention was made of the circumstances of the case.[47]The court arrived at the correct decision in finding that the plaintiff, as the owner of a building had a legal duty, to ensure that the staircase was not in such a condition, that it could cause harm to itsusers.[48] The nucleus of wrongfulness is the bonimores and this must not be overshadowed.[49]The court correctly found that the defendant was negligent. The court did not confuse wrongfulness with negligence and treated them as separate elements.The court correctly applied the tests for each element. Regarding the interpretation of the exemption clause, the court found no indication that exclusion from liability, for the negligent causing of personal injuries was sought.[50]It is submitted that there are now rules of law, from a delictual liability perspective that have a direct impact on exclusionary clauses.[51]The Consumer Protection Act 68 0f 2008,[52] and the National Credit Act 34 of 2005,[53] have direct impact on exemption clauses.Section 49 of the CPA demands that a clause be written in plainly understood language, the person made aware of it and further that this person be given a chance to consider the clause under the circumstances. Section1 of the NCA, classifies a credit provider, among others as lessor.[54]Section 90(1) of the NCA prohibits provisions which aim to deceive a contracting party.[55]



    [1]KerrContract 389.

    [2]KerrContract 389.

    [3]KerrContract 396.

    [4]Swinburne 105.

    [5]Swinburne 105.

    [6]1999 (1) SA 982 (SCA)(Hereinafter Durban Case).

    [7]Durban case 10.

    [8]Durban case 10.

    [9]Durban case 10.

    [10]Swinburne 107.

    [11]Swinburne 107.

    [12]Swinburne 108.

    [13]2004 (5) SA 511 (SCA) 312.

    [14]Swinburne 110.

    [15]s 12 Constitution.

    [16]Swinburne 110.

    [17]Swinburne 110.

    [18]Brand FDJ 2009 SALJ 75.

    [19]2007 (5) SA 323 (CC) (Hereinafter Barkhuizen)

    [20]2002 (6) SA 21 (SCA) (Hereinafter Afrox).

    [21]Afrox 8.

    [22]Barkhuizen.

    [23]2001 4 SA 938 (CC) (Hereinafter Carmichele).

    [24]Carmichele35.

    [25]Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (Hereinafter Constitution).

    [26]Neethling and PotgieterDelict17.

    [27]s 7(2)Constitution.

    [28]s 8(1) Constitution.

    [29]Neethling and PotgieterDelict17.

    [30]Barkhuizen 7.

    [31]s 39(2) Constitution.

    [32]Barkhuizen 12.

    [33]Barkhuizen 12-13.

    [34]Barkhuizen1.

    [35]Barkhuizen2.

    [36]Barkhuizen13.

    [37]Barkhuizen20.

    [38]s 34 Constritution.

    [39]Barkhuizen14.

    [40]Barkhuizen27.

    [41]Barkhuizen29 -30.

    [42]Swinburne 119.

    [43]Swinburne 111 -112.

    [44]Swinburne 101.

    [45]Neethling and PotgieterDelict129.

    [46]Swinburne 108.

    [47]Swinburne 108.

    [48]Swinburne 103.

    [49]Neethling and PotgieterDelict66.

    [50]Swinburne 110.

    [51]Neethling and PotgieterDelict66.

    [52]Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (Hereinafer CPA).

    [53]National Credit Act 34 of 2008 (Hereinafer NCA).

    [54]s1 NCA.

    [55]s 90(1) NCA.
    Last edited by Vanash Naick; 21-Jan-19 at 03:24 PM.
    LLB(UNISA), N.Dip(TWR)
    vanash.naick@gmail.com
    Services: Fire-Arm licence Motivation letters, Labour Law Consulting, drafting of professional legal and business contracts and conducting case-law research for attorneys
    Everything is awesome

  5. #5
    Diamond Member Vanash Naick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    lenasia
    Posts
    3,315
    Thanks
    853
    Thanked 697 Times in 609 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    6. BIBLIOGRAPHY
    6.1 BOOKS
    BobergDelict
    BobergThe law of delict(Juta 1989)
    Kerr Contract
    Kerr AJ The law of contract 6thed (LexisNexis 2002)
    Neethling and PotgieterDelict
    Neethling J and Potgieter JMThe law of delict7thed (LexisNexis 2015)
    Neethling, Visser and ScottCasebook on the law of delict.
    Neethling J,Visser PJ and Scott TJ Casebook on the law of delict 5thed(Juta2014)
    6.2 JOURNALS
    Brand FDJ 2009 SALJ
    Brand FDJ "The role of good faith, equity and fairness in the South African law of contract: The influence of the common law and the Constitution" (2009) 126 SALJ 71-90
    Naudé and Lubbe 2005 SALJ
    Naudé T andLubbe G "Exemption clauses - a rethink occasioned by Afrox Healthcare Bpk v Strydom" (2005) 122 SALJ 441-463
    Neethling and Potgieter 2011 THRHR
    Neething J and PotgieterJm “Liability for an omission: control over a dangerous object” 2011THRHR689-694
    6.3 TABLE OF STATUTES
    Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996
    Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008
    National Credit Act 34 of 2005
    6.4TABLE OF CASES
    Afrox Health Care Bkp v Strydom 2002 6 SA 21 (SCA)
    Barkhuizen v Napier 2007 (5) SA 323 (CC)
    Brauns v Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd2004 (6) SA 211 (E)
    Burton v The Real Estate Corporation 1903 TH 430
    Cape Town Municipality v Bakkerud2000 (3) SA 1049 (SCA)
    Carmichele v Minister of Safety and Security and another (Centre for Applied Legal Studies Intervening) 2001 4 SA 938 (CC)
    Durban’s Water Wonderland (Pty) Limited v Botha and another 1999 (1) SA 982 (SCA)
    Johannesburg Country Club V Scott 2004 (5) SA 511 (SCA)
    Kruger v Coetzee 1966 2 SA 428 (A)
    Minister of Safety and security v Van Duivenboden2002 6 431 (SCA)
    Minister van Polisie v Ewels1975 3 SA 590 (A)
    Skinner v Johannesburg Turf Club 1907 TS 852
    Spencer v Barclays Bank 1947 (3) SA 230 (T)
    Swinburne v Newbee Investments (Pty) Ltd 2010 5 ALL SA 296 (KZD)
    Van Eeden v Minister of Safety and Security 2003 1 SA 389 (SCA)
    LLB(UNISA), N.Dip(TWR)
    vanash.naick@gmail.com
    Services: Fire-Arm licence Motivation letters, Labour Law Consulting, drafting of professional legal and business contracts and conducting case-law research for attorneys
    Everything is awesome

Similar Threads

  1. Gremlin cashbook transaction - Newbee needing input
    By Pmilford in forum Accounting Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-Feb-16, 08:56 PM

Did you like this article? Share it with your favourite social network.

Did you like this article? Share it with your favourite social network.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •