Concept of Ownership
There must be a distinction between owing and possessing.
2 types of ownership (medieval idea of ownership)
o Dominuim Directum: Full ownership.
o Dominium Utile: Degree of ownership. Ie sertivtude.
Modern idea ofownership 1 type of ownership, BUT with different rights. Ie. Right
to use it, right to alienate it, right to use fruits etc.
There is a distinction between Germanic concept and Roman Law concept.
o Germanic- they had duplex dominum, much like medieval law.
o Roman law recognized duplex dominum, but saw it more as ownership with
different rights more life modern concept.
Roman Law concept
o Own split into Complete (full ownership) and Incomplete (Real rights)
o Real Right = rights over a possession or land, when one is not the owner. Ie rent,
servitude..
o Subordinate Right =
o Grotius distinguishes for the 1st time between real rights and subordinate rightstoday this is a commonly accepted view of ownership.
Transformation of ownership in the peasent communities.
Peasent: rural cultivator with no real control over their land and is subject to outside
power.
Social conditions not only change the concept of ownership, but also the concept of
who is owner, without the law fundamentally changing.
Three large scale transfers in 3 communities.
In Roman law there was 1 major concept of ownership in Germanic law there were
2 concepts of ownership (duplex domunium) RDL took both these concepts and
fused them into 1, so that there was ownership as a whole and real rights This
further gets divided into 2 different areas of Real Rights and Ownership, which is
illustrated in these social revolutions.
This transformation shows the big distinction between Real right and Ownership. In
Roman Dutch law one could be posses and work on it, but it meant less than being the
owner of the land. After these social revolutions, Possession and Real rights became
more important than ownership over land.
o Plaintiff had to show that if there was a law (duty) not to make a noise, it vests a
reciprocal right in the public to not have to have noise.
o The plaintiff tried to claim for compensation under the Lex Aquillian (which is a
delictual claim for damage to property) but this claim failed
o If a law protects a specific class of people, then in order to be protected by it, one
must prove that they are part of that class of people. If the law is for the general
public, then one has to show that they were harmed in order to be protected by the
law The law here pertained to residential area (specific class) The plaintiff
had to show that the area they were living in was a residential area (specific class)
and not a business district in order to get protection The difficulty in definition is
because there was a lot of rezoning and an encouragement for entrepreneurs to
move the cities. If they could not prove this, then they would have to show harm
has been done.
o The court found that the law was meant for general public protection the plaintiff
had to show harm had been done proof of breach of interdict is not enough.
o People should be able to use their property as they please, if it doesnt infringe on
others enjoyment, reasonably Factors for reasonable enjoyment.
Noise level
Social utility
Modern world has noisy things must be taken into consideration.
o Test to test reasonableness is the noise reasonable according to the ordinary
usages of mankind living in a particular society.
o There is a balance between two rights. Plaintiffs right to not have noise in his
property, and defendants right to do what he wants in his property.
o To say that the person who was there first has a right to the conditions of the area,
court says is not a good argument. (ie, I was making noise before u got here,
therefore you must put up with it.)
o Defendant says that the noise is not actually harming the plaintiff, but instead just
an inconvenience not enough to make an interdict.
o This type of action is not for discomfort to a person, but instead for discomfort to
property. This makes sense because the action the plaintiff used was a delictual
action under the lex aquillian for damage to property. The plaintiff could have
used a personal claim (actio inuriam) for personal harm. But if they had used this
then they could not have relied on the noise regulation rules.
o The only reason an interdict is allowed is because the defendant had not taken all
precautionary measures to ensure the noise was kept from escaping. They did not
win on an Aquillian action. If the plaintiff just has a low noise tolerance then
there is not interdict, but if the noise is actually too high, then there is they called
in a noise expert.
o Defendant is given time to fix their noise protection in order to prevent noise
escaping. Therefore interdict is given, but suspended.
yours to sell. There is a reason by statute or law as the why the contract cant
work.
3. Abstract view: Causa is an abstract concept and was not actually necessary
for transaction. Both parties just need intention to sell and buy to be able to
transfer no concrete causa necessary. Ie. I know I want to sell my cow, I
dont care how or for what, but I want to sell it.
o Ownership
Position of Causa in Roman Law we dont really know which view of causa they would
have taken, debate between 1st and 2nd, as there are cases of both. Most people think it was
2nd.
By Justinian times they leaned towards it being an abstract concept (3rd view) causa is
not necessary if there is simple intention.
Medieval Development
o Roman law was expanded by Germanic customary law
o Documentary conveyance: similar to Roman Law, but it was more official/ formal.
Needed to be noted by an official. Use of deeds by lombards. Different to
Roman law because in Roman law the delivery conveyed ownership and document
was proof. With the lombards, the contract (deed) is the actual conveyance
(tradition per cartam).
o Franks came after Lombards
Require that the sale of land happens in court
Aimed to keep a record. (grund buch)
This gave rise to the idea of a deeds registry
o This whole development came together in Germany all land transfer was
recorded Only for land
o Odd because in roman law there was no distinction between movable and
immovable property.
o Netherlands:
People start using deeds and Traditio per cartam.
Delivery falls away completely, registration book is the sole source for
transfer of land.
Natural Lawyers
o School of intellectuals in 17th, 18th century (Grotius, Pofendroff, etc) They were
the glossators and commentators they created civil law.
o Very liberal thinkers, based on morals, not bound by past thinkers.
o They thought traditio (delivery) was not necessary, all you needed was intention to
transfer complete opposite of Roman Law.
o Transfer should be based on a causa (a reason for transferring, not specific) voet
says you need a causa habilis a just cause. (justa causa)
o By this way of thinking there is no registration of deeds etc.
o There view is very inconvenient and did not protect 3rd party.
South African law
o Formal Conveyance:
Registration of land introduced by Dutch.
Causal conveyance: Relies on the validity of contract. Both parties must have the same causa.
Therefore, no causa, no conveyance.
3 Types of causa
Causa (intention) 3 types (AS MENTIONED ABOVE)
1. Causal views: Intention is only there if the contract is valid (object, price etc). Causa
needs an underlying valid transaction (ie. a sale) to transfer ownership. If there is any
problem with the contract, then the transfer is not valid and ownership does NOT pass.
2. There is only intent if both parties have the intent to transfer something. There is an
agreement on everything, object price etc. But the purpose of the contract is defective.
Ie. You cant transfer ownership of something that is not yours to sell. There is a reason
by statute or law as the why the contract cant work.
3. Abstract view: Causa is an abstract concept and was not actually necessary for
transaction. Both parties just need intention to sell and buy to be able to transfer no
concrete causa necessary. Ie. I know I want to sell my cow, I dont care how or for
what, but I want to sell it.
Historical views on the relationship between contract and conveyance.
Classical Roman law
o Disagreement in classical law about traditio
o Predominant view is that traditio is causal. Delivery is not enough for transfer. There
must be a motive to transfer.
Therefore. Law must look at what contract ACTUALLY IS, and not
just what it is CALLED! Even though they call it a sale, it may be a
hire contract.
In order for a genuine contract of sale to exist. There must be Animus
Emendi (intention to take ownership) by purchaser. There must also
be Animus Vendendi (intention to pass ownership) by the seller
Not enough to think that they had intention intention must be proven
as well! (question of fact)
De Wet found that even though the seller had animus vendendi, the
manufacturers did not have genuine animus emendi to buy and
become owners.
Manufacturer did not actually get any money for buying and selling the
goods to and from Randles. The only money they made from cutting,
making and trimming. There was no profit from the sale between
Randles and manufacturer was more of a token price.
Randles maintained control the whole time of the goods.
Manufacturer could not resell them to someone else or alienate the
property. Therefore Randles never actually gave up ownership.
Lack of seriousness in contract and lack of care for price of sale leads us
to believe there was not a proper sale.
No intention to transfer ownership Materials transferred to
manufacturer only for purpose of Randles No genuine sale no
rebate
Watermeyer
An agreement that is disguised to avoid an operation of law is fraud.
When the law forbids a type of transaction. 2 problems occurs
o The law has to define what kind of transaction is forbidden
o The transaction in question must be interpreted to determine if it
fits the description.
But when it comes to the 2nd step, parties sometimes seem to cover up
what they are really doing. (Fraudem Legis disguised agreement, with
some unexpressed or tacit agreement between parties)
Therefore court determine what the action actually is, and not what
the parties claim it is.
A Fraduem Legis is dishonest because the parties do no intend to be
bound by what the contract appears to be to the outside world.
Ownership does not pass on making of a contract, it passes when
delivery is accompanied with intention to transact.
If parties desire to transfer ownership and intend that ownership will
pass as a result of delivery, then they do have necessary intention and
ownership will pass. in this case, they did have delivery and they did
intend for ownership to pass, therefore ownership does pass and there
was a valid sale when a voluntary act is done with an expectation
of a consequence, then that consequence is intended. Randles and
Law of contract is any seriously intended agreement that can be enforced by law
Roman Law (4 types of contracts)
o Real Contract: Contract comes into force on delivery
o Literal Contract: Written contract
o Verbal Contract: Stipulatio (specific form of words that are said to be binding same
verb is said)
o Consensual Contract: Arises on agreement alone
Is just having an agreement sufficient for a contract?
o Real: Agreement is neccesary, but not sufficient also need delivery
o Literal: Agreement is not necessary all that is needed is written agreement
o Verbal: Agreement is not necessary all that is needed is verbal form
o Consensual: Agreement is necessary and sufficient.
Expansion of contracts (how did Romans deal with problems in contracts)
o Innominate (real) Conracts
Romans created a new form of contract which encombased different types of
agreement that didnt fall into 4 previous types of contract. Ie. (I do if you do)
Action arises once there is part performance
Up till now for all these other agreements that fall under innominate contracts,
the only remedy was unjustified enrichment.
Innominate Contracts gave way for a remedy to claim back contractual loss, like
the remedy that was avalible for other 4 types of contracts.
o Pact
o Medieval Law
Pacta Nuda: Nude pacts are not classified as any type of contract.
Pacta Vestimenta: Clothed Pacts Pacts classified by law.
If a pact is classified then it has an action attached to it.
only difference between the clothed and nude pacts, is that the law had
recognized clothed pacts as a categorized type of pact. Ie. Pact not to sue (pacta de
non pretendo) was recognized by law and was a clothed pact.
Nude pacts were hence not actionable, while clothed pacts are.
The doctrine of causa
o Medieval lawyers came up with a way to distinguish between nude pacts
and stipulatio
o causa was used for this distinction. In order for there to be causa, there
needs to have been a serious intention of some kind. Nude pacts
lacked this underlying reason stipulation on the other hand had a
causa (serious intent), otherwise the parties would not have said their
part.
Cannon Lawyers
o Contracts were governed by a moral oath.
o If you broke a contract, you were breaking an oath and offending God.
o Even a naked pact should be honoured because it is still a promise.
they thought that even naked pacts could have a causa and hence could
be actionable.
By the end of the Medieval period they had landed up with the idea that every
agreement that has a serious purpose is an actionable agreement.
There used to only be 4 types of contract, but now every type of agreement is
actionable.
o Natural Lawyer a general theory of contract of promise
Grotius:
o contract is a promise
o promise is a unilateral declaration of ones will
o In order for the other party to aquire rights, and hence give you
obligations, they have to accept your promise.
this move away from the pact idea of a unilateral promise to a bilateral
agreement.
a unilateral promise does not give one rights, only a 2 way agreement
gives one rights.
Contract as a convention or pact (Paffendrof)
o Bilateral declaration of will
o This is the next step beyond a promise 2 way agreement
Contract as consensus
o Consensus is needed to make any contract binding.
o I declare my will, you declare your will. We agree on it
o It is a meeting of the minds that creates agreement.
Natural lawyers have taken materials from Roman Law and make them apply
all round, to all contract.
Animus = conflict between what people express and what they intend.
Mistake In Contract
Mistakes in contract is a conflict in the theory of will: Subjective will v Objective will. What
you mean v what you say.
Roman Law
o Not one theory in Roman Law, instead it is build on different examples.
o Julian: If you lie to me in what you sell me, the purchase has no effect. Condictio to
recover money paid.
o Ulpian: If there is a disagreement on what is being bought and sold, then contract is
void.
o Emphasis on what was meant and not what was expressed. mistakes could hence
void contracts.
o Mistakes in object, identity, quality and attributes can all be grounds for destruction of
the contract.
Natural Lawyers
o They chatagorized different types of mistakes into those that void and a contract and
those that dont.
o 3 errors that are sufficient to void a contract
1. Error in corpore: mistakes in subject matter
2. Error in pretio: Mistake in price
3. Error in negotio: Mistakes in transaction
o 2 additional errors which were less likely to invalidate the contract
1. Error in persona: error in identity of the other party to the contract
2. Error in substantia: material quality of the contract
o 1 type of error that never invalidates
1. Error in mutuum: Mistakes in motive for sale
English Law
o Pothiers subjective will theory thought that an agreement of intent was necessary.
o General idea in English law disagreed with Pothier Only bound to extent to what
you have expressed.
o Unless there was fraud, parties were bound by what they said.
o If parties act as if they are bound by the terms, and it seems as if they are concenting to
them. If both parties enter into the contract, they are both equally bound, despite their
intentions.
o Mistakes in equity
Courts were abolished in 1908
1. Retification: Both parties agree on X, contract says Y, court just changed
contract to reflect the terms without the mistake
2. Refusal of specific performance: Court refuses an action to a party wanting to
uphold the other party bound to the contract.
o Eg, if there was misrepresentation.
o Deny v Hancock
3. Recission: To recover what has been performed on a fraudulent contract. This
happens after part performance of the contract.
Mutual mistake
Unilateral mistake
o Mistakes in Equity
2 actions that the court of equity can take
Refuse specific performance
Unwind what had been done already (recission) happens if there is
fraud
o Deny v Hancock
o Garrand v Frankel
th
o Mistakes in 19 century law
Maritz v Pratley (1984)
At an auction Pratley bids for an item. But thinks he is getting the table
that item is standing on as well.
Pratley refuses to pay, Maritz sues him for the price
Buchanan
o Onus is on the buyer to acquaint himself with the items being
sold was he negligent for not acquainting himself?
o Plaintiff said that it had nothing to do with negligence, the issue
is whether there was consensus in the contract.
De Villiers
o Question is whether or not there was a sale cannot be a sale
unless the parties agree on the same thing if there is no sale,
the amount cannot be payable.
o There must be clear and definite proof of a mistake.
o If mistake is coupled with gross negligence, the court wont find
in favour of the mistaken party
o There appears to be no negligence here
o The appeal is dismissed because it was a mistake with no
negligence, therefore was no consensus, therefore there was
no sale. Appeal was dismissed.
Logan v Beit
Beit buy shares from Logan on the grounds that he would receive certain
other rights with the purchase. Misunderstood term cum rights.
No exact definition of the term cum rights.
De Villiers
o Plaintiff could not prove that the defendant understood the
contract
o According to our law, a reasonable error will entitle the
reasonable party to the restitution (restore both parties to position
they were in before).
o De Villiers defines cum rights in favour of Logans (seller)
definition it is a unilateral mistake only a mistake on
behalf of Beit.
o One party puts their argument forward in English law, the other
party responds in Roman Dutch Law.
o Due to the facts it appears that the facts were not reasonable and
hence to error that would entitle the plaintiff to relief
Smith
o Plaintiff is not entitled to set aside the contract because there was
no consensus because there was no reasonable mistake, and
hence no justa causa to set it aside (no fraud or anything like
that)
o Appeal succeeded. Logan (seller) succeeds.
Intro
o Started off at the beginning on BC, there was one general edict for inuria
only for serious physical assult
o Progressed to special edicts for public shouting, sexual harassment,
definition
o All special edicts were conglomerated together to form one wide-range
general concept of inuria. had in common insult or contempt.
Scope of inuria
o Intentional act meant to offend and violate someones dignity
Words are seen as defamatory ifif they lower the plaintiff in the
eyes of right thinking people.
Court establishes what the ordinary meaning of a word is (the way
the average person understands a word) But there is the
possibility for a secondary meaning of circumstances.
It is up to the plaintiff to prove secondary meaning and to show that
the 3rd party (people reading advert) understood that meaning as well
Kidson argued that there was a secondary meaning, but could not
prove secondary meaning. claim failed.
They could not prove it because they could not show that any of the
readers knew that they were married or engaged.
o Dignity claim: to injure ones dignity, there must be insault
To succeed in claim
Whether particular facts constitute a particular deed
Whether that deed as wrongful in the 1st place
Whether the deed is an iniuria
o Decision about wrongfulness
o Was there fault
Whether deed is actionable
An act doesnt need to be wrongful to be defamation. But it does
require wrongfulness in regard to dignity
No need to prove 3rd knowledge of insult, because you can be
insulted without the 3rd party knowing.
o Remedies for insulted party
Actio legis aquillia must prove negligence or intention
Actio inuriarum Must prove intention
Up until the 50s intention (for both) needed to be proved,
however in the 50s a rebuttable assumption that intention exists
was introduced.
Negotiorum Gestio
If more than one wife then wives must band together to claim doesnt
really matter because breadwinners salary was supporting them all
anyways.
o Divorced spouses
Maintenance is demanded by court order.
Divorced wife can still get money from injurer because of the legal duty of
support
o Muslim marriages
Considered the same as normal SA marriages
Amod V Multi Vehicle Fund