HFL 1501 ASSIGNMENT 2

Question 1 1.1 The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. 1.2 The Constitution is the supreme law of South Africa, meaning that, all other laws be it common law, indigenous law, legislation, case law is subject to the Constitution and that all state departments are bound by the Constitution. Furthermore if any law is not in line with the Constitution, it must be amended and brought in line with the principles embodied within our Constitution. Question 2 2.1 A company, example TigerBrands 2.2 A car 2.3 The nemo plus iuris rule stated that ‘no one can transfer more rights in a thing to another person than he/she himself/herself has’, meaning that for the purposes of transfer of ownership, ownership can only be transferred if the person who transferred it was the owner of the item (Bauling; 2017:83), example if Ted wishes to transfer ownership of a car to Bongi, Ted must be the owner of the car. 2.4 Due to historical events such as the apartheid era (), many blacks, coloureds and Indians were not afforded the same opportunities as whites, especially where land was concerned. In other words historic events largely contributed to poor housing conditions and lack of access to land by many whom still remain fundamentally wronged today. 2 This study source was downloaded by from CourseH on :01:58 GMT -05:00 This study resource was shared via CourseH Alvina Nadasen HFL 1501 Assignment 2 Unique Number: As a result the Constitution protects the rights of illegal occupiers of land as seen in section 26 (3) of the Constitution of the republic of South Africa, 1996 in addition to the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 (PIE Act), which aims to correct historical wrongs. In my opinion the Court protects the rights of unlawful land occupiers, not only because of the Constitution and legislation, but because evicting people and families whom have no place to go is not only unconstitutional, it is inhumane. Furthermore it infringes upon their fundamental right to human dignity. Question 3 3.1.1 a. Fraud (dolus) was the factor that may have influenced consensus between Sarah and Tebogo, as Tebogo was misled by Sarah into thinking that the horse was 4 years of age and not 8, which may have persuaded him into buying the horse. b. The contact in void ab initio (from the start) on the grounds of fraud (dolus), as Sarah said that the horse was half its actual age (4 not 8) to persuade Tebogo to conclude the contract. 3.1.2 a. A Mistake (error), more specifically a mistake regarding the nature of the legal act (error in negotio) influenced consensus between Fatima and Razia, as Fatima was under the impression that she was selling her car to Razia, while Razia thought that she was merely hiring Fatima’s car. 3 This study source was downloaded by from CourseH on :01:58 GMT -05:00 This study resource was shared via CourseH Alvina Nadasen HFL 1501 Assignment 2 Unique Number: b. The contract is void ab ignition (from the start) because the mistake was substantial, as Fatima thought that she was selling her car to Razia, however Razia thought that she was hiring Fatima’s car, hence there was no meeting of the mind. 3.2 The following agreement (Joseph agrees to lend his van to Sibusiso until Friday next week) is a resolutive term, as “Friday next week” indicates a term, and “J