HFL1501 Assignment 6 Semester 2 2023 (ANSWERS)

HFL1501 Assignment 6 Semester 2 2023 (ANSWERS) QUESTION 1 1.1 In your own words, distinguish between the three ways in which the courts may exercise their testing capacity. (3) 1.2 Name the case discussed in the Study Guide that illustrated how the formal testing capacity of the courts was not sufficient to protect the basic underlying principles of an open and free democracy. (1) 1.3 During the 1950s, the Constitution of the Union of South Africa of 1910 applied. Indicate which approach to the principle of constitutionalism was embraced by that Constitution. (1) [5] QUESTION 2 In your own words, explain the relationship between transformative constitutionalism and the fundamental right to dignity. (4) [4] QUESTION 3 Describe, in your own words, how ubuntu has been expressed and applied in the Constitutional Court cases decided on the law of obligations, as discussed in Parts 2 and 3 of the HFL1501 Study Guide. Base your answer on your understanding of all aspects of the law of obligations discussed in the Study Guide. (5) [5] QUESTION 4 Read the media summary of the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) case of Fujitsu Services Core (Pty) Limited v Schenker South Africa (Pty) Limited (CCT 32/22) [2023] ZACC 201 that is included at the end of this assessment in Annexure A, and answer the questions below. These questions test your understanding of the contents of the HFL1501 Study Guide. It is not necessary to read the entire judgment, neither are you required to do any additional research on this case. Read only the media summary below and answer the questions based on your understanding of what you have learnt in this module this semester: 4.1 Identify whether the following statement is true or false, by only writing down “True” or “False” as your answer: 1 Hereinafter referred to as “the Fujitsu case”. 3 Since the theft of property initiated this dispute, real rights are involved and the legal principles of property law govern the dispute between the parties in this case. (1) 4.2 Why did Fujitsu institute legal action against Schenker and not Mr Lerama? (2) 4.3 Identify the Constitutional Court case discussed in the HFL1501 Study Guide that confirmed the applicability of vicarious liability in delictual cases. Also indicate which party in this case was held liable in terms of this legal principle. (2) 4.4 The contract that governed the dealings between the parties in this case included a stipulation that Schenker could not be held liable for losses suffered by Fujitsu in those cases where Fujitsu requested Schenker to transport high value goods, where Schenker was not made aware of the fact that the goods were of high value, and where the goods were then subsequently lost or damaged for any reason. Identify whether this stipulation is a term or a condition. (1) 4.5 Which Roman law contractual principle most closely relates to the concept of public policy and its relationship between the parties to a contract? (1) 4.6 The agreement between Fujitsu and Schenker is based on the principles of a Roman law contract of letting and hiring. Which type of contract of letting and hiring most closely resembles the fundamental principles of the agreement between the parties in this instance? (1) 4.7 Your neighbour, who has no legal training or experience, reads this summary of the judgment and is confused by how it is phrased. Explain the outcome of the case to her in simple terms. Your explanation of the Court’s decision should include mention of the legal principles relevant to the case that you learnt of in your HFL1501 studies this semester. Your answer should not exceed 200 words. (3) [11] TOTAL: [25]