1887

n Tydskrif vir die Suid-Afrikaanse Reg - Revocation of gifts on the ground of ingratitude - from Justinian to LAWSA : notes

USD

 

Abstract

Comparing the two quotations in the title above and reading certain recent judgments ( 2005 JOL 15248 (ZH); 2006 JOL 17490 (T)), I wondered if secondary sources, like , have actually become primary sources of law in our courts. Elsewhere I also raised concerns about the apparent willingness of the courts to rely on as a primary source of law ("Who is accountable to whom? - 2002 THRHR 298 303). The extract from Owens, updated by Wunsh and Daniels sv "Donations" VIII ( (2005) par 310) in the heading above differs from the statement of the law in the of Justinian quoted above. In this note I evaluate the historical background of revocations of donations made out of sheer liberality (ie a true donation) on the ground of ingratitude. According to theauthors of this title the chief ground for revocation of a donation is gross ingratitude on the part of the donee. "Ingratitude" in the Codex ("... if the receiver of the donation is not found to be ungrateful" - my translation of the Codex text quoted in the heading above) has become "ingratitude" in In this note I aim to establish if there is a substantial difference between the two sources.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/ju_tsar/2011/2/EJC55382
2011-01-01
2016-12-08
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error