Browsing by Author "Otto, Michael"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Germany and South Africa : a comparative study of their concepts of contract law and mistake
    (Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University, 2004-04) Otto, Michael; Lubbe, G. F.; Stellenbosch University. Faculty of Law. Department of Public Law.
    ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The problem of mistake and its impact on the formation of contract is a central issue in the law of contract of all legal systems. The thesis investigates this area by considering the manner in which it has been dealt with in Germany and South African law. Although both legal systems are of the civilian origin. The German law is a codified system, whereas South African law is an uncodified one in which in the absence of legislation, legal problems are resolved by decisions of the High Court operating under a strict doctrine of legal precedent. German law does not in a formal sense acknowledge that judges can make law, but the thesis demonstrates the considerable weight that is nevertheless attached to judicial decisions in practice. The impact of differences in legal methodology on substantive law is a principal theme of the investigation. It is addressed by means of a systematic comparison between the manner in which the two systems deal with concepts such as heiuristic act and declarations of will, the notion of contract and the relevance of offer and acceptance as its constituent elements. Thereafter the broad topic of mistake as a circumstance that vitiates agreement and other defects of will such as deceit, duress and undue influence are considered. Whereas German law as a codified system presents a comprehensive regulation of the issues, a case law system such as that of South Africa can only deal with matters brought before the courts by parties engaged in a dispute. Because judges also tend to frame decisions as narrowly as possible, such a system characterised by gaps in the law in relations to issues that have not been authoritatively determined. The resultant uncertainty is exacerbated by the fact that different courts might decide the same issue differently and that a considerable period of time might elapse before the issue is settled by the highest court in the judicial hierarchy. In regard to matters of substance, both systems proceed from a common conceptual framework, but often tend to emphasise different aspects in coming to solutions. German law places great store on the notion of the declaration of will, a concept which is analysed in considerable detail in relation to its treatment in South African law. Although South African law recognises the notion of a juristic act, there is no sign of the refined and systematic discussion of the concept along the lines of German law. In consequence, concepts such as offer and acceptance play a less important role in South African law. In relation to the treatment of mistake as well the greater emphasis of German law on the declarations of will is in marked contrast to the more subjective approach of South African law and its resort to a theory of reliance as a corrective liability in cases of disagreement. Both systems adopt an approach with subjective and objective elements. but with a different mix of these elements in each instance. An overriding conclusion is that both systems might have erred in placing too great an emphasis on objective elements in the determination of when contractual liability should be imposed. It is contended that renewed attention to the doctrine of culpa in contrahendo might enable both South African and German law to deal more satisfactorily with the problem of disagreement in contract.