HFL1501 Assignment 6 (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2 2024 - DUE 23 October 2024

HFL1501 Assignment 6 Full Solutions Semester 2 2024 - DUE 23 October 2024 ;100 % TRUSTED workings, Expert Solved, Explanations and Solutions. For assistance call or W.h.a.t.s.a.p.p us on ...(.+.2.5.4.7.7.9.5.4.0.1.3.2)........... Questions Answer the following questions based on your understanding of the HFL1501 study material: QUESTION 1 1.1 Name one South African constitution of which you have learned in this module that embraced an approach of complete denial of the principle of constitutionalism. (1) 1.2 Provide evidence from the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 that supports the statement that the current South African governmental structure is not based on parliamentary supremacy. (4) [5] QUESTION 2 2.1 Provide one valid example of each of the following classifications of things: a) a consumable thing (1) b) a single thing (1) c) res extra commercium (1) 2.2 Which form of delivery is applicable in the following scenarios? a) André leases an office complex from Michelle for a period of five years. Two years after the lease agreement is concluded, Michelle puts the office complex on the market and André buys it. (1) b) Orabile buys a 2022 Volkswagen Polo from a second-hand vehicle dealership. Upon receipt of the purchase price, Juju, an employee of the dealership, hands the keys of the vehicle to Orabile. (1) c) Lerato sells her car to Charles, but the parties agree that Lerato will temporarily keep the car and lease it from Charles for a period of two months before she delivers it to him. (1) [6] QUESTION 3 Read the discussion of the facts provided in the media summary of the Supreme Court of Appeal case of Special Investigating Unit v Phomella Property Investments (Pty) Ltd and Another 2023 (5) SA 601 (SCA) that is included at the end of this assessment in Annexure A. The questions that follow 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, or on the parties concerned. Read only the discussion 3 provided below and answer the following questions based on your understanding of what you have learnt in this module: 3.1 Identify a term of the contract between the parties and state whether this term is suspensive or resolutive in nature. (2) 3.2 Identify a condition of the contract between the parties and state whether this condition is suspensive or resolutive in nature. (2) 3.3 If you were a judge of appeal hearing this matter, and it came before you on 3 April 2016, would you have agreed with the SIU that the contract was not concluded legally? Explain your reasoning in sufficient and specific detail, based on your understanding of the common law as discussed in the HFL1501 study material. Your answer should not exceed 200 words. (3) [7] QUESTION 4 Under modern South African law, unlawful arrest qualifies as a form of iniuria. Name two fundamental rights, entrenched in Chapter 2 of the Constitution, that may possibly be infringed if a person is unlawfully arrested. (2) [2] QUESTION 5 Answer the following questions by relying on your knowledge of this module and what you have learnt throughout the semester. In this question, you should answer by giving your own opinion, but you must be able to motivate each answer. Please write your answer for each question in full sentences. 5.1 Do you view our legal system differently now that you have completed this module? If your answer is “yes”, explain what you have changed your mind about, or what you have learnt. If your answer is “no”, explain which of your earlier ideas has been confirmed. Limit your answer to 100 words. (3) 5.2 Did you enjoy this module? If your answer is “yes”, explain what you liked best about the module, the content, or how the module is presented. If you answer “no”, you will not be penalised for doing so, but you must explain what you disliked, or what the lecturers could have done differently that would have changed your opinion of the module. Limit your answer to 60 words. (2) [5] TOTAL: [25] ANNEXURE A Discussion: The Special Investigating Unit v Phomella Property Investments (Pty) Ltd and Another 2023 (5) SA 601 (SCA)1 Background information on parties relevant to the case The Department of Public Works (DPW) is a division of the executive authority of the government of the Republic of South Africa. The authority, mandate and power of this Department is governed and limited by various sections of and schedules to the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, and several pieces of legislation. For the purposes of answering this question, you need to understand that the DPW is tasked with procuring property (either by purchase or lease) for the use of government departments (the state). The DPW thus concludes agreements on behalf of the state, in line with various legislative prescriptions and requirements. You do not need to do any further research on the DPW or its functions and powers to answer the relevant questions. The Special Investigating Unit (SIU) is an independent investigative organisation, created in terms of the Special Investigating Units and Special Tribunals Act 74 of 1996. The purpose of the SIU is to investigate allegations of corruption, malpractice and maladministration in South African government institutions; the potential mismanagement of state assets and public money; and any actions that could harm the interests of the public. The intended outcome of these investigations is to recover any financial losses suffered by state institutions through court proceedings. You do not need to do any further research on the SIU or its functions and powers to answer the relevant questions. Relevant facts of the case On 3 April 2023, the Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed with costs an appeal from a judgment of the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria. The matter before the court related to the letting and hiring of a building in Pretoria, owned by the first respondent (Phomella). The building was to be used as office space by the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development. The DPW had negotiated a contract of letting and hiring with Phomella, which had been concluded on 22 September 2009. The contract stipulated that Phomella would lease the building to the DPW for a period of 9 years and 11 months. The agreement was subject to the condition that, prior to signature, an inspection of the building was to be conducted by the DPW. The parties signed the contract, but no inspection took place. In February 2017, the Special Investigating Unit (the SIU), applied to the High Court for the contract to be declared unlawful and for an order that Phomella pay to the DPW a sum exceeding R103 million, which according to the SIU was wasteful expenditure. According to the SIU, an area greater than was needed by the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development had been leased. This amount was based on the SIU’s calculation of the sum paid to Phomella for the area of the building that allegedly exceeded the space needed by the Department. The SIU argued that, if the contract was declared unlawful, Phomella may not benefit from it and therefore had to repay the sum it was not legally entitled to receive.