Bibliographie sélective OHADA

The concepts public policy and public interest often obtain an imprecise content as a criterion for contractual justice in South African law. The consequence of this is some degree of legal uncertainty. This is the problem raised in the present dissertation. From the cases and literature the causes of the problem became clearer and it became evident that the correct basis to deal with this problem is the systematisation of this sphere of the law of contract, which also implies the circumspect dealing with concepts. This was confirmed by the examination of a number of foreign legal systems. It appeared moreover that in these systems too, general criteria are used to evaluate contractual justice, namely: in German law the concepts gute Sitten and Treu und Glauben, in Dutch law the concepts goede zeden, openbare orde, as well as redelijkheid en billijkheid (goede trouw) and in English law the concept public policy and possibly in future also the concept good faith. The foreign systems furthermore provided some solutions regarding the practical implementation of the systematisation. The proposed systematisation firstly implies that public policy and public interest should be understood correctly as a general criterion in this sphere, which means that it has a normative character as well as a flexible nature, which necessarily causes some degree of legal uncertainty. It also implies that public policy and public interest - correctly orientated - should be seen as pivotal to one of the requirements for a valid contract, which is traditionally known as the requirement of legality, but which probably should rather be known as the requirement of lawfulness. This requirement should in addition be understood in a broad sense as also relating to the effect of contracts, and consequently to contractual justice, seen as the relative balance between the interests of the parties. The systematisation furthermore includes the understanding that in this sphere a judge has a limited discretion in exercising a law-creating power. The discretion is limited, especially to prevent a judge from reaching a decision on account of a purely subjective opinion. Regarding this limited discretion an established system of guidelines currently does not exist in South African law, but in the present dissertation a step in this direction was made. The gist of these guidelines is that the nature and the context of the relevant contract or contract term should be observed. The individual case should, however, not be over-emphasised, since that may lead to a superabundance of legal uncertainty and to the misuse of public policy and public interest as a defence. Regarding practical application the systematisation includes in short that various facets of public policy and public interest are distinguished, namely legislation and common law, established views and customs (boni mores), and thirdly public policy and public interest as such, concretised by the concept good faith as the underlying principle. It is submitted that the proposed systematisation could contribute to decreasing the imprecise use of the concepts public policy and public interest and concomitant legal uncertainty.

In hierdie ondersoek is daar navorsing gedoen oor die aard en rol van fisiese beheer in die sakereg met die oog daarop om dit te omskryf en die funksies daarvan te identifiseer. By die verkryging van eiendomsreg word net vereis dat die fisiese beheer wat ten aansien van die saak uitgeoefen word, effektief moet wees. Of 'n saak effektief beheer word al dan nie, word aan die hand van die heersende verkeersopvattings getoets. Hierdie verkeersmaatstawwe wat in die praktyk ten aansien van bepaalde soorte sake uitgekristalliseer het, is buigsaam en veranderlik en dit maak dit moontlik dat die reg by maatskaplike en ekonomiese veranderinge aanpas. Die funksie van fisiese beheer in gevalle van verkryging is altyd publisiteit. In die geval van die beskerming van eiendomsreg word fisiese beheer besonder breed omskryf en daar word slegs verwag dat die persoon van wie die saak teruggeeis word, genoegsame beheer daaroor moet he om dit te kan teruggee. Die funksie van beheer is hier suiwer funksioneel. By die verlies van eiendomsreg speel fisiese beheer nie juis 'n besondere rol nie aangesien die verlies van beheer nie noodwendig op die verlies of beeindiging van eiendomsreg dui nie. Wanneer dit wel ter sprake kom, is die funksie daarvan publisiteit. In die geval van die verkryging van besit en houerskap, dien daarop gelet te word dat die enigste vereiste is dat beheer effektief moet wees en dit word weer eens aan die hand van verkeersmaatstawwe bepaal. Fisiese beheer word strenger omskryf vir verkryging as vir behoud. By die beskerming van besit en houerskap is die enigste vereiste wat gestel word dat beheer vreedsaam en ongestoord moes gewees het. Wanneer beheer oor 'n saak verloor word, gaan dit gewoonlik gepaard met die verlies van besit of houerskap. Die funksie van fisiese beheer is deurgaans publisiteit. Fisiese beheer word redelik streng omskryf vir doeleindes van 'n gewone pand en daar word gewoonlik vereis dat die pandsaak gelewer en gehou moet word vir die vestiging en behoud van 'n pandreg. Die funksies van beheer is hier sekuriteit en publisiteit.