LJU4804
ASSIGNMENT 2 SEMESTER 2 2025
UNIQUE NO. 199151
DUE DATE: 15 SEPTEMBER 2025
, Private International Law
Question 2.1
If the South Gauteng High Court follows the objective approach to determine the
proper law of the contract, the court will seek to identify the legal system with which the
contract has the closest and most real connection. This approach disregards the
subjective choice of law by the parties (where no explicit choice is made) and instead
examines objective connecting factors.
According to Fredericks, the objective approach is concerned with the “centre of gravity”
of the contract, requiring consideration of factors such as:
The place of performance of the contractual obligations;
The place of contracting;
The domicile, residence, or place of business of the parties; and
The currency of payment and the subject matter of the contract.¹
In the present case, several factors are relevant:
Place of performance: Payment had to be made into Sakana’s bank account in
Japan, and delivery took place FOB Tokyo.
Location of the goods at delivery: The tuna was handed over to Catch’s carrier
in Tokyo, indicating a strong link with Japan.
Places of business: Sakana’s place of incorporation and central administration
is Japan; Catch’s is South Africa.
Currency of payment: The purchase price was denominated in euros, a neutral
currency but arranged in favour of the seller.
These factors demonstrate that the contract is more closely connected to Japan than to
South Africa. Under the objective approach, the court is therefore likely to determine
that Japanese law is the proper law of the contract.²
ASSIGNMENT 2 SEMESTER 2 2025
UNIQUE NO. 199151
DUE DATE: 15 SEPTEMBER 2025
, Private International Law
Question 2.1
If the South Gauteng High Court follows the objective approach to determine the
proper law of the contract, the court will seek to identify the legal system with which the
contract has the closest and most real connection. This approach disregards the
subjective choice of law by the parties (where no explicit choice is made) and instead
examines objective connecting factors.
According to Fredericks, the objective approach is concerned with the “centre of gravity”
of the contract, requiring consideration of factors such as:
The place of performance of the contractual obligations;
The place of contracting;
The domicile, residence, or place of business of the parties; and
The currency of payment and the subject matter of the contract.¹
In the present case, several factors are relevant:
Place of performance: Payment had to be made into Sakana’s bank account in
Japan, and delivery took place FOB Tokyo.
Location of the goods at delivery: The tuna was handed over to Catch’s carrier
in Tokyo, indicating a strong link with Japan.
Places of business: Sakana’s place of incorporation and central administration
is Japan; Catch’s is South Africa.
Currency of payment: The purchase price was denominated in euros, a neutral
currency but arranged in favour of the seller.
These factors demonstrate that the contract is more closely connected to Japan than to
South Africa. Under the objective approach, the court is therefore likely to determine
that Japanese law is the proper law of the contract.²
