dc.contributor.author |
Lotz, Johan
|
|
dc.contributor.author |
Nagel, C.J. (Christoffel Johannes), 1954-
|
|
dc.date.accessioned |
2012-10-24T06:15:56Z |
|
dc.date.available |
2012-10-24T06:15:56Z |
|
dc.date.issued |
2012-08 |
|
dc.description.abstract |
Hierdie vonnisbespreking handel oor die vraag of die feit dat onroerende goed wat geskenk
word met ’n verband beswaar is, ’n wesenlike beding is wat in die skenkingskontrak vervat
moet word ten einde aan die geldigheidsvereistes van artikel 5 van die Algemene
Regswysigingswet 50 van 1956 en artikel 2(1) van die Wet op Vervreemding 68 van 1981 te
voldoen. Na oorweging vn die twee Scholtz-sake in die lig van relevante positiewe reg en
wetgewing argumenteer die skrywers dat die bestaan van ’n verband en die wyse waarop na
die skenking daarmee gehandel word nie noodwendig wesenlike bedinge van die skenking is
nie. Of sodanige inligting ingesluit moet word, is ’n feite- en nie ’n regsvraag nie en sal van
die omstandighede van elke saak afhang. Dit sal dus verkeerd wees om die insluiting daarvan
in alle skenkingskontrakte van onroerende goed te vereis. |
en_US |
dc.description.abstract |
This case note deals with the question whether the fact that immovable property which has
been donated is encumbered by a mortgage bond, is a material or essential term of the
contract of donation which should be included in such a contract for it to be valid in terms of
both section 5 of the General Law Amendment Act 50 of 1956 and section 2(1) of the
Alienation of Land Act 68 of 1981. Having considered the judgments in the two Scholtz cases
in view of the relevant positive law and legislation, the authors argue that the existence of a
mortgage bond and the manner in which it should be dealt with after the donation are not
necessarily material terms of the donation. Whether this information should be included is not
a question of law but of fact and will depend on the circumstances of each case. To require
the inclusion thereof in all contracts of donation of immovable property would therefore be
wrong. |
en_US |
dc.description.uri |
http://www.litnet.co.za/cgi-bin/giga.cgi?cmd=cause_dir_news&cat=201&cause_id=1270 |
en_US |
dc.identifier.citation |
Lotz, J & Nagel, C 2012, 'Vonnisbespreking : Beskrywing van geskenkte onroerende goed wat met 'n verband beswaar is : Scholtz v Scholtz 2012 1 SA 382 (WKK); Scholtz v Scholtz (209/2011) [2012] ZASCA 9', LitNet Akademies, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 117--133. |
en_US |
dc.identifier.issn |
1995-5928 |
|
dc.identifier.uri |
http://hdl.handle.net/2263/20272 |
|
dc.language.iso |
Afrikaans |
en_US |
dc.publisher |
LitNet |
en_US |
dc.rights |
LitNet |
en_US |
dc.subject |
Donated immovable property |
en_US |
dc.subject |
Geskenkte onroerende goed |
en_US |
dc.subject |
Mortgage bond |
en_US |
dc.subject |
Verband |
en_US |
dc.title |
Vonnisbespreking : Beskrywing van geskenkte onroerende goed wat met 'n verband beswaar is : Scholtz v Scholtz 2012 1 SA 382 (WKK); Scholtz v Scholtz (209/2011) [2012] ZASCA 9 |
en_US |
dc.title.alternative |
Description of donated immovable property encumbered by a mortgage bond |
en_US |
dc.type |
Article |
en_US |